[Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers)

[Lukáš Czerner]

On Thu, 29 May 2014, Greg KH wrote:

> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 16:30:04 -0700
> From: Greg KH <greg at kroah.com>
> To: Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net>
> Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at hansenpartnership.com>,
>     "ksummit-discuss at lists.linuxfoundation.org"
>     <ksummit-discuss at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging
>      more reviewers)
> 
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:03:16PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > What are we really trying to fix here? Is the current process really
> > broken or are we trying to create more process that's not needed for
> > some other reason?
> 
> I think the latter.
> 
> Somehow, we seem to be constantly increasing our rate of change, are
> people thinking we are having problems here?  If so, exactly where?
> This thread has taken an odd turn into trying to make some new kind of
> process for an unknown issue (i.e. the people on this list are not going
> to recognize the reviewers more, it's up to you to educate your managers
> / company more.)

This is not only about managers / company. Reviewers does not seem
to have much recognition in upstream community either. For example
we do take into account s-o-b when creating preliminary list of
people to get invited to kernel summit, but we do _not_ take into
account reviewd-by (or has anything changed?)...

> 
> Are maintainers who deal with huge number of patches (i.e. 1000+ a year)
> crying out for help that this is somehow going to reduce their burden?

It is going to help. More reviews is less work for a maintainer to
do on it's own.

-Lukas

> 
> I don't think so, but hey, what do I know about this development
> process...
> 
> grumble,
> 
> greg k-h
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>