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 EA1E498F for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 08:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from saturn.retrosnub.co.uk (saturn.retrosnub.co.uk [178.18.118.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 796361F8C2 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 08:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.59.1.138] (p57B43578.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.180.53.120]) by saturn.retrosnub.co.uk (Postfix; Retrosnub mail submission) with ESMTPSA id 0D7FA404B9 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 09:37:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <5386F233.9070709@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 09:39:15 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 29/05/14 03:15, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> On Sat, 24 May 2014, James Bottomley wrote: >> >>> I'm sure there are many other things people could suggest. >> >> What's needed is to bring quality reviewers up to the same level of >> recognition and control as maintainers. >> >> Ideally, maintainers would recognize quality reviewers, and list them in >> the MAINTAINERS file - perhaps with an "R:" tag? Maintainers would be >> expected to designate at least one quality reviewer, but ideally more, for >> a given subsystem. >> >> Then we should require every patch to have at least one "Reviewed-by:", >> aside from the maintainer's "Signed-off-by:" before being merged. This >> "Reviewed-by:" could come from the maintainer, but ideally would come from >> a quality reviewer. >> >> Patch submitters would need to get their patches reviewed by at least one >> of the recognized reviewers before expecting it to be merged. >> >> Part of the goal here would also be to convert quality reviewers into >> co-maintainers over time, so maintainership duties can be spread among a >> larger group of people. > > What really needs to change here as we already essentially have this > today. Getting more reviewer bandwidth is why we have 5 DT binding > maintainers. DT bindings are a bit unique in that almost everything > goes in thru other maintainers trees, so the role is almost entirely > reviews. But what's to say a co-maintainers role is not solely > reviews. How co-maintainers split up the load is really an internal > decision among them. > > Do we really have people we trust to review that we wouldn't trust to > be a co-maintainer? There are people who effectively fulfil this role already but for are perhaps under pressure from their employer not to formally take on a co-maintainer role? (this happened to me a while back - I think it might have been something that had to go a few too many steps up into management...) Note that the person in question took on most of the role in reality anyway but isn't formally acknowledged for it. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss >