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 3BDD9B1D for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 03:13:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 163B1ED for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 03:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:13:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Julia Lawall To: Theodore Ts'o In-Reply-To: <20150710001411.GJ9417@thunk.org> Message-ID: References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <1481488.5WJFbB0Dlm@vostro.rjw.lan> <1436341028.2136.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20150708080032.CE89E4306F@saturn.retrosnub.co.uk> <20150708145315.29030a75@gandalf.local.home> <20150709193951.GE9169@vmdeb7> <20150709202152.GE1237@dtor-ws> <20150710001411.GJ9417@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: James Bottomley , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk, Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:21:52PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > No, that is not always true. If I see a naked "reviewed-by" from a > > person who's been working on the subsystem quite a bit and shown a good > > judgement it is enough for me. I do not need them to find something to > > nitpick over so that there is "meat" to the review. > > Absolutely. If I'm looking at a patch for ext4, and I see a bare > Reviewed-by: from Jan Kara, I treat that very differently compared to > a Reviewed-by: coming from someone like Nick Krause. > > The challenge is if we are using a scheme that uses some kind of > automated counting of Reviewed-by lines, how do we make the system > smart enough so it counts the former, but not the latter? I guess it's possible using various features of what the person has done in the past to devise a machine learning algorithm that could make this distinction. julia > Or worse, > *encourages* more of the latter, which just adds more noise which > actually increases the load on Maintainers, not decreases. > > (Which is also my objection to people sending patches generated from > "checkpatch --file" runs. Maybe it's fine in for staging code, but > for other subsystems, it basically just means there are more patches > that require review by someone clueful --- since sometimes "cleanup" > patches from trolls actually introduce bugs.) > > - Ted > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss >