[Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Stephen,

On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr at canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 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 ...

Thanks for the numbers!

How many Acked-by? Sometimes there's only a thin line between Acked-by
and Reviewed-by.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds