From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760400AbYDNP4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:56:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752889AbYDNPzt (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:55:49 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([69.55.235.186]:52383 "EHLO us.intercode.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752532AbYDNPzr (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:55:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:54:00 +1000 (EST) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@us.intercode.com.au To: Al Viro cc: Andrew Morton , Willy Tarreau , david@lang.hm, Stephen Clark , Evgeniy Polyakov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Tilman Schmidt , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Mark Lord , David Miller , jesper.juhl@gmail.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Reporting bugs and bisection In-Reply-To: <20080414072328.GW9785@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <47FEADCB.7070104@rtr.ca> <20080413121831.d89dd424.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413202118.GA29658@2ka.mipt.ru> <200804132233.50491.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080413205406.GA9190@2ka.mipt.ru> <48028830.6020703@earthlink.net> <20080414043939.GA6862@1wt.eu> <20080414053943.GU9785@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20080413232441.e216a02c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080414072328.GW9785@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Al Viro wrote: > Real review of code in tree and patches getting into the tree. There is currently little incentive for developers to perform review. It's difficult work, and is generally not rewarded or recognized, except in often quite negative ways. There is a small handful of people who do a lot of review, but they are exceptional in various ways. OTOH, writing code is relatively simple, and is much more highly rewarded: - People tend to get paid to write kernel code, but not so much to review it. - Things like "who made the kernel" statistics and related articles ignore code review. - Creating new features is perceived as the highest form of contribution for general developers, and likely important as career currency (similar to the publish or perish model in the academic world). I don't know how to solve this, but suspect that encouraging the use of reviewed-by and also including it in things like analysis of who is contributing, selection for kernel summit invitations etc. would be a start. At least, better than nothing. - James -- James Morris