Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers

[Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>]

On 2014/5/25 16:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2014 13:53:45 +0400 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The latter was supposed
>>> to be helped by having the Reviewed-by: tag so we gave credit to
>>> reviewers.  I've found the Reviewed-by tag to be a bit of a double edged
>>> sword: it is a good way of giving review credits, but I also see patches
>>> that come in initially with it on (usually the signoff and the
>>> reviewed-by are from people in the same company) ... it's not
>>> necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't add much value to the kernel
>>> review process, because we're looking for independent reviews.  The
>>> other thing I find problematic is that some people respond to a patch
>>> with a Reviewed-by: tag and nothing more.  I'm really looking for
>>> evidence of actually having read (and understood) the patch, so the best
>>> review usually comes with a sequence of comments, questions and minor
>>> nits and a reviewed-by at the end.
>>
>> Some stats (I know you all love stats :-)):
>>
>> for next-20140523, no merge commits, origin/master..HEAD^ (exclude
>> Linus' tree and my Next files commit)
>>
>> commits: 7717
>> commits with more than one Signed-off-by: 6291
>> commits with Reviewed-by: 1369
>> commits with Tested-by: 354
>>
>> Not sure what these show ...
> 
> Thanks for the numbers!
> 
> How many Acked-by? Sometimes there's only a thin line between Acked-by
> and Reviewed-by.
> 

Correct. Some Acked-by's are actually Reviewed-by's, and somethimes people
reviewed the code withouting providing Reviewed-by's.

For me, Tejun and I are co-maintaining cgroup. At first I said acked-by
to some of his patches and said reviewed-by to others, and that made it
hard for Tejun to add tags to his patches, so we agreed that I'll just
always stick to acked-by.