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 B5DA7B13 for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 16:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.active-venture.com (mail.active-venture.com [67.228.131.205]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8FF2034A for ; Fri, 30 May 2014 16:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5388B5A3.3040700@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:45:23 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: markgross@thegnar.org References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <5380F092.3070600@roeck-us.net> <1400993829.2322.13.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <538360B1.8000807@roeck-us.net> <20140530160517.GA28078@yp2> In-Reply-To: <20140530160517.GA28078@yp2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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 05/30/2014 09:05 AM, mark gross wrote: > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:41:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On 05/24/2014 09:57 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:18 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The thing I'd like to see way more in the Linux ecosystem: >>>>> >>>>> 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 it, if >>>>> they want to. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Problem with that is that in most company hierarchies code reviewers >>>> get little if no credit for their work. >>> >>> I could see this in start up type companies. Older companies learned >>> long ago that customers value quality over features so they tend to have >>> elaborate review processes. (As an aside, customers say they value >>> features, but if you deliver one with a regression, it's the regression >>> you'll hear about the whole time). >>> >> >> I am not sure if all those companies learned the lesson. Agreed, many >> of them do, but I have seen the opposite. But that is not really >> the point here. >> >> You can actually take the Linux kernel at a case in point: Let's assume >> someone wants to hire a kernel engineer and looks up kernel commits for >> reference. What do you think that person will look for ? Patch authors >> or "Reviewed-by" tags ? I would argue it is going to be patch authors. >> >> Really, again, the point (or question) here is how much credit an engineer >> gets for doing code reviews (or fixing bugs, for that matter) vs. for >> writing code. I would argue that there is very little incentive for >> senior engineers (ie those who are best suited to do code reviews) >> to actually _do_ code reviews more or less for a living, or at least >> for a substantial amount of their time. >> > I got a significant promotion at intel this year largely because I do a lot of > internal code reviews. I think you are looking at things in a short sited > manner. > Good for you and for Intel. However, I think you may have misunderstood my comments. > Doing a lot of reviews and getting pretty good at it will make one a leader in > setting the priorities and quality metrics for the code written by everyone else. > This is a significant power over any organization. It sets you apart as a leader > and mentor, how could you not be recognized for it. If you keep it up long > enough to pay off. Which is a challenge. > > A solid code reviewer has project global sway over how things get designed and > implemented and over time grows trust and confidence between the reviewer and the > organization. From a world dominion point of view this is vector I would > recommend to anyone wanting to be important. > Excellent for Intel if that is the mentality and culture there. Unfortunately, that culture does not necessarily apply to other companies. > Further I find arguments like the above to be pathetic and distasteful. Profit > motives are getting out of control IMO. (yeah, I know its too easy for me to say > while getting well paid) But, still if that is your motive you are still doing > it wrong if you ignore reviewer value. Its easier to get money through having > authority than any other way. > Shoot the messenger ? I did not say or suggest that I agree that not rewarding code reviewers would be a good idea. In fact, I strongly disagree. What I said was an observation; if anything, the argument behind it was that there is a management problem at many companies with recognizing code reviewers, which would need to change to encourage more and better code reviews. It may be considered pathetic and/or distasteful that such a management problem exists (though I would not use those words - they are a bit close to getting personal in my opinion), but I fail to see how _reporting_ that such a problem exists would in any way or form be pathetic or distasteful. Guenter