From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>,
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Subject: Re: Only 27% of reviewed-by tags are explicit, and much more
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 11:00:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60ccc3332428c_5eaa2208df@natae.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTr2fEYN2y7FyKaspuaCpAq6wNtHgg_8RcrOmvsN5+XaA@mail.gmail.com>
Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This prompted me to write a script [6] to programmatically find statistics
> > about these trailers. Obviously it isn't perfect (as all software); it
> > tries to avoid human fuzziness (like people pasting other patches with
> > scissors [-- >8 --], or just straight put pasting the patch [^From: ]), but
> > even so there are instances I manually had to skip [7].
> >
> > Here are the top 20 reviewers over the past 10 years with their
> > corresponding explicit over total Reviewed-by count:
> > ...
> > 5. Eric Sunshine: 14% (17/116)
>
> Does your script check cover letters? Based upon a quick glance at it,
> it doesn't seem to.
Not really, that's a good point.
> Although I've reviewed thousands of patches over the years, I almost
> never give my Reviewed-by:; it is an exceedingly rare occurrence.
> However, when I do give it, it's almost always in response to the
> cover letter (saying "this entire series is reviewed by <me>"), not in
> response to individual patches. I've seen other reviewers do so, as
> well. So, if your script doesn't take cover letters into account, then
> you might want to revise it to do so in order to get a more accurate
> picture.
I've updated the script to consider all responses to the cover letter
that start with 'Re: '.
> In fact, if my memory is correct, some reviewers give their
> Reviewed-by: to an entire series in response to one of the patches
> rather than to the cover letter, so perhaps you can come up with a
> heuristic to identify those cases too.
That's true. Depending whether or not that's the exception or the rule it
might make sense to simply consider all Reviewed-by responses to apply
to the entire series and make the heuristic match the cases where it's
only for a single patch.
Anyway, with the updated script the explicit reviewed-bys are 40%, and
here are the stats:
1. Jonathan Nieder: 80% (254/314)
2. Jeff King: 7% (18/248)
3. Stefan Beller: 28% (54/190)
4. Matthieu Moy: 64% (84/131)
5. Eric Sunshine: 38% (45/116)
6. Derrick Stolee: 11% (12/102)
7. Taylor Blau: 46% (39/83)
8. Michael Haggerty: 76% (42/55)
9. Elijah Newren: 25% (12/47)
10. Johannes Schindelin: 11% (4/35)
11. Jonathan Tan: 28% (9/32)
12. Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy: 20% (6/30)
13. Ronnie Sahlberg: 100% (16/16)
14. SZEDER Gábor: 0% (0/14)
15. Luke Diamand: 7% (1/13)
16. Felipe Contreras: 8% (1/12)
17. Johannes Sixt: 40% (4/10)
18. Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: 22% (2/9)
19. Stefano Lattarini: 37% (3/8)
20. Torsten Bögershausen: 0% (0/7)
Jonathan Nieder, Matthieu Moy, Michael Haggerty and Ronnie Sahlberg got
considerably more percentage, but others didn't.
The histogram [1] shows an increase in the 60%-100% range, in particular
the 80% range (thanks to Jonathan Nieder), but there's still plenty
below 50%.
You got considerably more, from 17 to 45, but still pretty far from a
100%.
I think the conclussion still stands: Reviewed-by isn't always expressly
given, in fact, the majority of case it isn't.
Cheers.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/gr6YjsZ.png
--
Felipe Contreras
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-18 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-18 3:47 Only 27% of reviewed-by tags are explicit, and much more Felipe Contreras
2021-06-18 5:05 ` Eric Sunshine
2021-06-18 16:00 ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
2021-06-19 7:00 ` Eric Sunshine
2021-06-19 21:45 ` Felipe Contreras
2021-06-18 5:56 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-06-18 16:05 ` Felipe Contreras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=60ccc3332428c_5eaa2208df@natae.notmuch \
--to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=sunshine@sunshineco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).