From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA267AEB for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03B0C1FFF3 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:52:52 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Andy Lutomirski Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 01:09:58 +0200 Message-ID: <5297416.ffi1RyGs7d@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 03:43:00 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 07:27:06 PM Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner wrote:= > >> On Sat, 24 May 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > [cut] > > > >> > > >> > Paid reviewers/maintainers (selected people, no hiring offers). = The > >> > number of developers increases faster than the number of quality= > >> > keepers. So, the latter should be given the chance to focus on i= t, if > >> > they want to. > >> > >> That does not make much sense to me. In order to review the code y= ou > >> need to understand it and if you already understand the code, you > >> can write it as well. I do not think that having dedicated reviewe= rs > >> is realistic in the long run. > > > > That's correct and dedicated reviewers who don't really write code = will > > become less and less reliable over time. So they will have to be p= eople > > who actively work on the code *and* review patch submissions from o= ther > > developers. > > > >> However encouraging reviewers by treating reviewed-by tag with equ= al > >> "respect" as signed-off-by seems like the better way. > > > > I would even argue that it should be treated more seriously than si= gn-offs. > > After all, there are more patches applied (and all of them are sign= ed-off > > by at least one person) than there are commits with the Reviewed-by= tag. >=20 > Does Signed-off-by mean something different from "I affirm what the > DCO says" these days? Formally - no, I don't think so. Practically, though, I'm expecting pe= ople who send me patches with their sign-offs to at least stay around for so= me time to fix issues related to their changes. Rafael