linux-kernel - Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080728141414.d7e5def2.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:14:14 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>,
	Simon Arlott <simon@...e.lp0.eu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 463 kernel developers missing!

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:46:24 -0400 Dave Jones wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 04:22:36PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>  > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote:
>  > > Other people aren't perfect, I've found over 1,000 typos in the those
>  > > names and emails. We need a validation mechanism.
>  > > 
>  > 
>  > You keep using the word "need"; I do not think it means what you think
>  > it does.  :-)
>  > 
>  > Seriously, why is it so important?  It's a nice to have, and I
>  > recognize that you've spent a bunch of time on it.  But if the goal is
>  > to get better statistics, and in exchange we forcibly map all Mark
>  > Browns to one e-mail address, and/or force them to all adopt middle
>  > initials (what if there are two Dan Smith's that don't have middle
>  > initials) just for the convenience of your statistics gathering, I
>  > would gently suggest to you that you've forgotten which is the tail,
>  > and which is the dog.
> 
> I'm beginning to question just how useful the continued measuring
> of things like Signed-off-by's is.   Last week at OLS, I overheard
> a conversation where someone was talking about the "top 10" lists
> that Greg has been talking about at various conferences.
> The conversation went along the lines of "my manager really wants
> to see us on that list, at any cost".
> Whilst the niave may think 'more patches == more better', this isn't
> necessarily the case given we have nowhere near enough review bandwidth
> *now*, and flooding with a zillion trivial patches really isn't going
> to make that job any easier.
> 
> Getting patches into the tree is easy, we've proven that.
> As things stand now, it's also fairly easy to 'game' the system
> by committing something in 10 changesets when it could be done
> just as easily in 2-3.
> 
> How about we start measuring things that actually matter, like..
> 
> "How many patches were reviewed before they went in"
> "How many patches were directly responsible for a bug"
> "How many patches actually fixed something anyone cares about"
> "How many patches are responsible for just 'churn'"

It would be Good if we could give more value to Reviewed-by: tag lines also...

IOW, we "need" to do this.  :)


---
~Randy
Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/