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 1EA15988 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:17:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA0EC1F895 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 08:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <538449D2.5000508@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 16:16:18 +0800 From: Li Zefan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geert Uytterhoeven References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140525141725.54db587a@canb.auug.org.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 2014/5/25 16:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> On Sat, 24 May 2014 13:53:45 +0400 James Bottomley 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.