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 457E19CB for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:43:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8219201A2 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id im17so11537231vcb.10 for ; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:43:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrot= e: > On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 07:27:06 PM Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner wrote: >> On Sat, 24 May 2014, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > [cut] > >> > >> > 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. >> >> That does not make much sense to me. In order to review the code you >> need to understand it and if you already understand the code, you >> can write it as well. I do not think that having dedicated reviewers >> is realistic in the long run. > > That's correct and dedicated reviewers who don't really write code will > become less and less reliable over time. So they will have to be people > who actively work on the code *and* review patch submissions from other > developers. > >> However encouraging reviewers by treating reviewed-by tag with equal >> "respect" as signed-off-by seems like the better way. > > I would even argue that it should be treated more seriously than sign-off= s. > After all, there are more patches applied (and all of them are signed-off > by at least one person) than there are commits with the Reviewed-by tag. Does Signed-off-by mean something different from "I affirm what the DCO says" these days? --Andy