[Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Sat, 24 May 2014 13:53:45 +0400 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>
> The latter was supposed
> to be helped by having the Reviewed-by: tag so we gave credit to
> reviewers.  I've found the Reviewed-by tag to be a bit of a double edged
> sword: it is a good way of giving review credits, but I also see patches
> that come in initially with it on (usually the signoff and the
> reviewed-by are from people in the same company) ... it's not
> necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't add much value to the kernel
> review process, because we're looking for independent reviews.  The
> other thing I find problematic is that some people respond to a patch
> with a Reviewed-by: tag and nothing more.  I'm really looking for
> evidence of actually having read (and understood) the patch, so the best
> review usually comes with a sequence of comments, questions and minor
> nits and a reviewed-by at the end.

Some stats (I know you all love stats :-)):

for next-20140523, no merge commits, origin/master..HEAD^ (exclude
Linus' tree and my Next files commit)

commits: 7717
commits with more than one Signed-off-by: 6291
commits with Reviewed-by: 1369
commits with Tested-by: 354

Not sure what these show ...
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/attachments/20140525/699fd44c/attachment.sig>