From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40378) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RkcaC-0001hc-6O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkca7-0005TC-P3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:48 -0500 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:40356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkca7-0005T1-M3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:43 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e4.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:42 -0500 Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q0AELXYb141672 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:33 -0500 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 q0AELGXg031844 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 07:21:17 -0700 Message-ID: <4F0C495A.9040602@us.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:21:14 -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> <4F0C3B85.7030600@us.ibm.com> <4F0C3E0C.1020408@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F0C3E0C.1020408@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 07:33 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 10.01.2012 14:22, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> 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/ > > I usually do that, although manually. > > Of the 487 patches I have committed, 71 have a Reviewed-by tag in the > commit message. Maybe I've missed to include it for some, but that's > about the ratio that feels realistic to me. That's 14.6%. My rate over the past year is 15.8% so you're probably catching the vast majority of them. The tree overall is 12.6% for the entire year so I guess that means the majority of Reviewed-by's are being added. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Kevin >