Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists)

[josh@joshtriplett.org]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:49:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:13:52 -0700 josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > That assumes the patch actually has issues.  To use the reviews I do on
> > RCU patches as an example, in a patch series, I might reply to a few
> > patches with "here are some issues; with those fixed, Reviewed-by...",
> > and then reply to the remaining unproblematic patches (individually or
> > in aggregate) with just the Reviewed-by.
> 
> Josh, I read your reviews. Yes, you have a bunch of single "Reviewed-by"
> tags, but you also have a lot of emails with substantially significant
> comments. What Ted is saying, is to see how many significant replies one
> has. In fact, I would say if we were to automate this, each significant
> reply (one with actual comments), would increase the weight that a
> single "Reviewed-by" email would carry. That way people like yourself
> would have more weight attached to emails with single "Reviewed-by"
> than others that don't have many emails with actual comments attached.

Ah, I see what you're getting at now.  I thought you were trying to
figure out the value of a "Reviewed-by" on an individual patch.  But
you're right, a review doesn't carry much weight if your reviews *never*
find issues; that would imply you're either chery-picking easy patches
to review or rubber-stamping bad patches.

(And conversely, a Reviewed-by on a patch that turns out to be wrong
shouldn't carry any more stigma than submitting such a patch yourself.
Everybody has submitted a brown-paper-bag at some point; as long as
there's not a pattern of it, that's not a critical issue with
reviewing.)

- Josh Triplett