Re: [Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND or not ATTEND] That's the question!

[Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>]

On 07/06/2012 02:36 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 03:41 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:54:52AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 01:43:06PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>>> The same way we have checkpatch, we can have something automated that
>>>> will attempt to rule out some trivial patches in the counting process.
>>>> We can scan a patch, and easily determine if each part of it is:
>>>>
>>>> * pure whitespace
>>>> * pure Documentation change
>>>> * comment fix
>>>>
>>>> And if a patch is 100 % comprised by those, we simply don't count it.
>>>> People that just want to increase their numbers - they will always
>>>> exist, will tend to stop doing that. Simply because doing it will not
>>>> help them at all.
>>>
>>> OTOH, documentation changes or comment fixes, and even sometimes pure whitespace
>>> fixes, can be very valuable contributions. This can be a useful and ungrateful
>>> work and that deserve credit.
>>>
>>> We just can't find an automated and right way to evaluate a contribution.
>>
>> Well what about submitters and maintainers labeling patches below the
>> SOB with tags like the following?
>>
>>    Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
>>    Tags: docu whitespace trivial
>>
>> Part of the review would be making sure the labels fit.
>>
> 
> Please no!
> I don't see why we should clutter the changelog with tags for reasons as
> unimportant as measuring some patch's value!
> 
Stronger: Having the maintainer to do more work is hardly a way to decrease
the amount of work he does. (Well, it could be in some cases, but not in
this)