From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F2CB2468 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:47:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pokefinder.org (sauhun.de [88.99.104.3]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59C48BF for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 13:47:21 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Jan Kara Message-ID: <20190708114721.GB1050@kunai> References: <20190706142738.GA6893@kunai> <20190706165214.GB18182@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> <20190706171724.GA12534@kunai> <20190708104716.GA20507@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190708104716.GA20507@quack2.suse.cz> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Keeping reviews meaningful List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi Jan, > There are two things here: If I review a patch and I'm not confident I did > a good job for some parts (because I didn't have time or I just don't know > that part of the kernel), then I should write that to the reply with > Reviewed-by tag. That's IMHO a good rule but I don't think you can enforce > it in any way. You can just ask people that do reviews for your subsystem > if you think they're omitting this. I agree to this. This is why I intentionally wrote my theses with words like "should" and "encourage" because I don't believe in "enforcing" such a thing. Nonetheless, having a clear statement worked well for commit messages, I think. We have spread the word how important good commit messages are and from what I observe they have become better. I wish for a similar process with reviews. And from my side, it could be as simple as "checked everything, all good". > The second thing is that if human doesn't know something, then he/she has > a tendency to underestimate how much he/she doesn't know (this even has a > psychological term "cognitive bias"). So the self-evaluation of "how good is > my review" is always going to be subjective and it is upto maintainer to > judge what is the value of the review. I still consider the mere description of what was reviewed in detail and what not already helpful. I agree that the maintainer still has to evaluate the review. > To give an exaple, Ted Tso (ext4 maintainer) tends to just ignore "empty > Reviewed-by" replies from people that haven't built enough credit in the > kernel community by actually finding bugs with their reviews... This is good to know. I will apply some rules for I2C. Yet, it feels easier if I2C is not some obscure island but part of something. Thanks, Wolfram --i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAl0jLUUACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZvAw/8DRsfOnURMeNOTZc84OuwQQCOmIMQfCkIPbZaVOAjQbzzi0ma+CJpgwBc kZ4dN8GKkNToiOMq/meKSYu+uLpsG+lKkTmE18dq9NUwsAmgeVExr96s/f2zuWvm rgDYqOGjwn75ZOb9N/wEl4Ds/chNu6x9+u8rm52U+W6QmEkH/T7g2B8A2jfZf5gq 2t0DpHIe6TYpM4GZTY54m8IzitMo3HKcSHGWRM0zC5EoEnqvKw8MZAI8XN8NyMQf ooqxdIJdot1nVM8aoSDe51neLh0iLQ8pjyz2MRfsJHgvBZ2N/ZyET9s43ExHJYZS KvMz+gADuINhmd8IHblNNZGtKL0+k4Dhub/IEILVxLEvMJxMTecK79YnZ4G5eum/ vghd/KVqIJ7VK8JKsZOlVqrQTn+tUh73xm/DTaFU1InS1nuznSY7CmamP5lOhJQH X0Y+A2PfspyZHNYg+g3HKbT7USb+ZzlfZhhQOIgrgsyZDB51PfxRgC6kzqdK2Lvl UYUVfVR/TeU6Qq7J6F1bfAaxgK4J+ln73dxbzdFyPorIBoyJr46bYDncfq/ZfYJT uonSrDWhuWRu19pxyyAWpwBVK43vUNJsrpaQ80lXJMNf0N2PYPHSyFNW0ZWOf0IU VGqwWkaZ4TKPfRqheRIc4X4WwlM4mr24hvnQAJgjVAWSuJO+X34= =ClzT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --i0/AhcQY5QxfSsSZ--