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 EBA64988 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 21:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (www.linutronix.de [62.245.132.108]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DC5D1FFF3 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 21:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:59:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Josh Triplett In-Reply-To: <20140528162833.GA23815@thin> Message-ID: References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20140524111927.GA3455@katana> <4700397.FLxRVChBLf@vostro.rjw.lan> <1401294020.13546.95.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <20140528162833.GA23815@thin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Wed, 28 May 2014, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Or perhaps in LWN's statistics, which focus on Signed-off-by but don't > mention Reviewed-by at all. Oh no. The existing madness about the LWN stats is bad enough. We don't want to encourage another excel sheet accountable competition. It's bad enough that the stats already foster a metric ton of horrible patches. The least we need is a metric ton of horrible reviews conducted just to show up in the rankings. You cannot fix the lack of capable reviewers or the lack of time of those who are capable by any tags, statitics or whatever. You need to look at the underlying problem. And that's at least related by the commit statistics. The flood of crappy patches and the amount of review cycles it takes to get even trivial stuff into an acceptable shape is what makes the live of a maintainer and reviewer a nightmare. The goals of some organizations, to reach a top X contributor level in 201X, results in a frency of half baken "works for me" patches, completely unreviewed inside of the organization and let lose on the maintainers/reviewers who are burdened to educate the submitters. That's the real issue. And this needs to be fixed first. I really started to put breaks into this cycle of hell, where I get spammed with a 30+ patch series in the morning and after I spent some quality time looking at it and replying to a particular patch, I get another spam bomb within a few hours, which is not much better than the previous one. Hell no, that does not work. No matter how many maintainers/reviewers you have there is no way that they can scale to that global effort which is obviously conducted to prove a newfangled variant of the Infinite-Monkey-Theorem: Computers instead of typewriters and well written kernel patches instead of Shakespeares writings. Thanks, tglx