From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B6E538BDF for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 23:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="Wofbt4EW" Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FEAD1B1 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c509f2c46cso36562391fa.1 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; t=1698449420; x=1699054220; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=7wvasZUGdzUlCp36t9CiD94Z2xAZIX3c5sqRXyMOP0U=; b=Wofbt4EWs2KIYKOjM135GcRCNFbMQ6gs1IjGmmFbiEmqoVhW8EF6+mh1B70MY9MX4L /CeeW24glpaJwqHwp44L5/UEqdkx5pY/U0+7bjBylRkHg7NtZS6Y0wFpvPTqafIChBoS VKZWJCizQ4Hcd0zZX3kY8bh2+S8MXk7etEiVE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698449420; x=1699054220; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=7wvasZUGdzUlCp36t9CiD94Z2xAZIX3c5sqRXyMOP0U=; b=iGr5M716SnWheTz/l1nYQFRVYTSH6tqkuSU4B5fyALyzH+PiVU7X6GI7H4Wrebcuqe WGo/Kx++/4YFckvkMw/tM6yimTwwtVJLED78UUDCZJZj63aYiZQBpMFI/y4xHVSTSsFm YocaPsUVh6px/F51037GWSvdGdxHxQiGMSZUbnu2aLrNxSk9Ic+ypCeuQSIeUkKkA6JN E1CHWkxh4tOgHlUS6UWa+Py81FMhBxPkRL6UZ1joL9Kgbr0/iYyNTNEgk/cGy7xnCkbD +BcMnW+FhCkWqgL0MtbTvDwHKdLrCmT6BZosyyf5HoK1owOf+JMqq3+E7v8/mw4bEVTn /K7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyi65LFo6oWavjI5yIK7cZJH9hS4zBzIKuJcmMEMSWQUwzOtT1F d+VSHJ9a8OwikhoKV0q2FCxZMs0ywydTD5WANcMklQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFL0aZA2cLAks58II2PjIs5mNB3GuGPPE8ggw3074p3v2Ma8klFw5T/Cmd3h9Wfw7ChLnZ70A== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a793:0:b0:2c5:19e9:422c with SMTP id c19-20020a2ea793000000b002c519e9422cmr3431571ljf.24.1698449420238; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f52.google.com (mail-lf1-f52.google.com. [209.85.167.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p26-20020a2ea41a000000b002c2c21750e7sm453406ljn.17.2023.10.27.16.30.18 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-507be298d2aso3776519e87.1 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:488a:b0:502:d743:8a6c with SMTP id eq10-20020a056512488a00b00502d7438a6cmr2813810lfb.9.1698449418278; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <169786962623.1265253.5321166241579915281.stg-ugh@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20231023223810.GW3195650@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20231024-flora-gerodet-8ec178f87fe9@brauner> <20231026031325.GH3195650@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20231027-gestiegen-saftig-2e636d251efa@brauner> In-Reply-To: <20231027-gestiegen-saftig-2e636d251efa@brauner> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:30:00 -1000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] iomap: bug fixes for 6.6-rc7 To: Christian Brauner Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Shirley Ma , hch@lst.de, jstancek@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 at 08:46, Christian Brauner wrote: > > One of the critical parts is review. Good reviews are often insanely > expensive and they are very much a factor in burning people out. If one > only ever reviews and the load never ends that's going to fsck with you > in the long run. I absolutely despise the review requirement that several companies have. I very much understand why it happens, but I think it's actively detrimental to the workflow. It's not just that reviewing is hard, the review requirement tends to be a serialization point where now you as a developer are waiting for others to review it, and those others are not nearly as motivated to do so or are easily going to be nitpicking about the non-critical things. So it's not just the reviewers that get burned out, I think the process ends up being horrific for developers too, and easily leads to the "let's send out version 17 of this patch based on previous review". At which point everybody is completely fed up with the whole process. And if it doesn't get to version 17, it's because the reviewers too have gotten so fed up that by version three they go "whatever, I've seen this before, they fixed the obvious thing I noticed, I'll mark it reviewed". The other dynamic with reviews is that you end up getting review-cliques, either due to company pressure or just a very natural "you review mine, I review yours" back-scratching. Don't get me wrong - it can work, and it can even work well, but I think the times it works really well is when people have gotten so used to each others, and know each other's quirks and workflows and they just work well together. But that also means that some people are having a much easier time getting reviews, because they are part of that "this group works well together" crowd. Maybe it's a necessary evil. I certainly do *not* think the "lone developer goes his own way" model works all that well. But the reason I said that I wish we had more maintainers, is that I think we would often be better off with not a "review process" back-and-forth. but a _pipeline_ through a few levels of maintainers. Not the "hold things up and send it back to the developer" kind of thing, but "Oh, this looks fine, I'll just send it on - possibly with the fixes I think are needed". So I think a pipeline of "Signed-off-by" (or just merges) might be something to strive for as at least a partial replacement for reviews. Sure, you might get Acked-by's or Reviewed-by's or Tested-by's along the way *too*, or - when people are just merging directly through git - you'd just get a merge commit with commentary and perhaps extra stuff on top. Back when we started doing the whole "Signed-off-by" - for legal reasons, not development reasons - the big requirement for me was that "it needs to work as a pipeline, not as some kind of back-and-forth that holds up development". And I think the whole sign-off chain has worked really well, and we've never needed to use it for the original legal purposes (and hopefully just by virtue of it existing, we never will), but it has been a huge success from a development standpoint. When something goes wrong, I think it's been great to have that whole chain of how it got merged, and in fact one of my least favorite parts of git ended up being how we never made it easy to see the merge chain after it's been committed (you can technically get it with "git name-rev", but it sure is not obvious). I dunno. Maybe I'm just dreaming. But the complaints about reviews - or lack of them - do tend to come up a lot, and I feel like the whole review process is a very big part of the problem. Linus