From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:39860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkbf1-00068w-AF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:22:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkbev-0001lC-Ej for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:22:43 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:46530) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkbev-0001kb-8h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:22:37 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:22:33 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0ADMHUQ071664 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:22:17 -0700 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q0ADMGdo023472 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:22:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4F0C3B85.7030600@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:22:13 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F071111.6080306@us.ibm.com> <4F075371.4060904@web.de> <4F075CC2.6010700@us.ibm.com> <4F0C360A.2090100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0C360A.2090100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU Code Audit Team List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Chris Wright , Peter Maydell , Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefan Hajnoczi , Corey Bryant , qemu-devel , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , Avi Kivity , Stefan Weil On 01/10/2012 06:58 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Probably we need to attack the reviewing problem first: That I review > all block patches myself worked well as long as we were two or three > people in that area, but today it doesn't scale any more without > lowering the review standards - and I don't want to do that. Maybe we > should introduce something like "One Reviewed-by buys you two > Signed-off-bys for your own patches" ;-) I think one thing that helps is to make sure for maintainers to include Reviewed-bys in commits. The script I use (below) takes a mbox with the full thread and folks Reviewed-by/Tested-bys into the original patch spitting out an mbox with just the patches and tags. That way people are getting credit in git for doing reviews. It's a small incentive but every little bit helps. http://git.codemonkey.ws/cgit/mbox-filter.git/ Regards, Anthony Liguori > > I can imagine that other subsystem maintainers have similar problems. > > Kevin >