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 ESMTPS id 67C933EE for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:03:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2B5919B for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2017 09:03:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: James Bottomley , Jiri Kosina In-Reply-To: <1493217836.2526.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20188905.kHbMkj7sB6@avalon> <1834084.5qZ8rLimvk@avalon> <1492631703.3217.30.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <3f55980c-1e8d-c841-2555-472ed10eb2fc@sandisk.com> <20170426084253.yvxyzb3khh2fej4j@mwanda> <1493217078.2526.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1493217836.2526.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:06:03 +0300 Message-ID: <87h91arzic.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ksummit , Dave Airlie , Greg Kroah-Hartman , David Miller , Doug Ledford , Bart Van Assche , Ingo Molnar , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, James Bottomley wrote: > Agreed, but I think you'll find most maintainers have a "trust factor" > for reviewers. Perhaps we should discuss how we arrive at this and how > we should make it more public. The way I often deal with less trusted > reviewers is to redo their review and point out all the things they > missed and ask them not to come back until they can be more thorough. I think that's also a bit harsh, because I think the only way to become a better reviewer is to... review. I know it's hard to balance being welcoming to new reviewers and ensuring the patches do get proper review in the end. Certainly one thing that increases my trust in a review is the amount of review comments on the patch, even if there's a Reviewed-by at the end. Basically any hints that the reviewer has actually thought about the changes. On a related note, as maintainers I think we need to put more attention to recording the review credits in the commits. It's not unusual for review to be more work than writing the patch. The patch authors may be new contributors, or just looking at their specific use case, but the reviewer should look at the big picture. I think Jon will start tracking reviews more regularly, like he did for v4.11 stats [1], but obviously the stats are only as good as the input. BR, Jani. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/720336/ -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center