Messages in this thread | | | From | NeilBrown <> | Date | Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:38:50 +1100 | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [RFC PATCH 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Subsystem Profile |
| |
On Fri, Nov 16 2018, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:10:36AM -0800, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> > > Em Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:03:11 +0100 >> > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> escreveu: >> > > >> > > > Hi Dan, >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:06 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: >> > > > > Document the basic policies of the libnvdimm subsystem and provide a >> > > > > first example of a Subsystem Profile for others to duplicate and edit. >> > > > > >> > > > > Cc: Ross Zwisler <zwisler@kernel.org> >> > > > > Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> >> > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for your patch! >> > > > >> > > > > --- /dev/null >> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/nvdimm/subsystem-profile.rst >> > > > >> > > > > +Trusted Reviewers >> > > > > +----------------- >> > > > > +Johannes Thumshirn >> > > > > +Toshi Kani >> > > > > +Jeff Moyer >> > > > > +Robert Elliott >> > > > >> > > > Don't you want to add email addresses? >> > > > Only the first one is listed in MAINTAINERS. >> > > >> > > IMO, it makes sense to have their e-mails here, in a way that it could >> > > easily be parsed by get_maintainers.pl. >> > >> > I personally think that list of "trusted reviewers" makes more harm than >> > good. It creates unneeded negative feelings to those who wanted to be in >> > this list, but for any reason they don't. Those reviewers will feel >> > "untrusted". >> >> I'd like to +1 on this concern here. Besides leaving all the other >> people demotivated. > > Yes, that's a valid concern, I overlooked that unfortunate interpretation. > >> >> A small group of trusted reviewers doesn't scale. People will get overloaded. >> Or you won't be able to enforce that all patches need to get Reviews. >> >> Reviews should be coming from everywhere and commiters and maintainers >> deciding on what to trust or re-review. >> >> Also the list is hard to maintain and keep the lists updated. > > I understand the concern, and as I saw feedback come in I realized > there were more people that I would add to that reviewer list for > libnvdimm. > > Stepping back the end goal is to have an initial list of recommended > people to follow up with directly to seek a second opinion, or help in > cases where a contributor otherwise needs some direction / engagement > that they are not readily receiving from the maintainer. Typically > someone just lurks on the mailing list for a few weeks to get a feel > for who the usual suspects are in the subsystem, but for a new > contributor identifying those individuals may be difficult. > > One of the contributing factors of lack of response to a patchset is > that they are sent with the implicit expectation that the maintainer > will get to eventually, and typically other people feel content to sit > back and watch. If instead a contributor sent a direct mail to a > "trusted reviewer" saying, "Hey, Alice, Bob seems busy can you help me > out?" that seems more likely to rope in additional review help.
In here is, I think, a real issue that listing "trusted reviewers" might help address. As you say, people don't feel the need to comment - particularly if they don't see anything wrong (often best to insert a bug to encourage responses!). Maybe if we list people, it will make them feel that their opinion is valuable (trusted!) and that will encourage them to Ack or Review a patch. I have found that being given a title of responsibility can change my thinking from "someone should" to "I should".
NeilBrown [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |