From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkd3i-0007F5-Cm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:52:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkd3d-0003db-V2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:52:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59061) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rkd3d-0003dW-OQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:52:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4F0C515A.8080105@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:55:22 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf 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> <4F0C3F9F.3060302@web.de> In-Reply-To: <4F0C3F9F.3060302@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QEMU Code Audit Team List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Cc: Chris Wright , Peter Maydell , Anthony Liguori , Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefan Hajnoczi , Corey Bryant , qemu-devel , Avi Kivity , Stefan Weil Am 10.01.2012 14:39, schrieb Andreas F=E4rber: > Am 10.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Kevin Wolf: >> 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 revie= w >>>> 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 w= e >>>> 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 inclu= de=20 >>> Reviewed-bys in commits. The script I use (below) takes a mbox with = the full=20 >>> thread and folks Reviewed-by/Tested-bys into the original patch spitt= ing out an=20 >>> mbox with just the patches and tags. >>> >>> That way people are getting credit in git for doing reviews. It's a = small=20 >>> 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. >=20 > If you want an incentive, just put up a rule that every patch needs to > be reviewed by at least the submaintainer and one person apart from the > author (i.e., SoB + RB/AB + SoB). If a patch is lacking that additional > review, the author will ping the list. And get no response, delaying the patch forever. I already tried this unintentionally when I had just too little time to do the 85% myself. I told people that they should find someone else to review their series if they want to have it committed. Stefan reviewed some of them, but in most cases, the series ended up being reviewed by myself some weeks later. Kevin