Date:   Sun, 18 Nov 2018 11:11:29 -0200
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, rodrigo.vivi@...il.com,
        ksummit <ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        zwisler@...nel.org, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [RFC PATCH 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS:
 Subsystem Profile

Em Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:38:50 +1100
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> escreveu:

> On Fri, Nov 16 2018, Dan Williams wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...il.com> wrote:  
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.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@...ux-m68k.org> escreveu:
> >> > >  
> >> > > > Hi Dan,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:06 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.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@...nel.org>
> >> > > > > Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>
> >> > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
> >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.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".

I heard a similar feedback from some subsystems: giving someone a 
formal credit may actually help to get more reviews.

However, as Leon pointed later in this tread:

Em Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:12:54 +0200
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> escreveu:

> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 03:39:47AM -0800, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:43:51 -0800
> > Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> escreveu:
> >  
> > > On Thu, 2018-11-15 at 19:40 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:  
> > > > > I would recommend to remove this section at all.
> > > > > New maintainers won't come out of blue, but will be come
> > > > > from existing community and such individuals for sure will see
> > > > > and judge by themselves to whom they trust and to whom not.  
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps this is more of a hint to contributors than to maintainers
> > > > (see earlier discussion on who is the target audience for these documents).
> > > >
> > > > It would help contributors know some names of useful reviewers (and
> > > > thus this list should be picked up by scripts/get_maintainer.pl to help
> > > > the user compose Cc: lists for e-mail patches).  
> > >
> > > Trusted reviewers should be specifically listed
> > > in the MAINTAINERS file with an "R:" entry.
> > >
> > > get_maintainers should not look anywhere else.  
> >
> > I know that making get_maintainers to look elsewhere can make it more
> > complex and slower, but IMHO, by having a per-subsystem profile, this is
> > unavoidable.
> >
> > The thing is that touching at a single MAINTAINERS file every time a new
> > reviewer comes is painful. Also, MAINTAINERS file format doesn't allow
> > adding free text explaining the criteria for someone to become a
> > reviewer.  
> 
> You are pointing to the actual problem -> someone needs to maintain such
> lists, Removal of persons from that list won't be easy task too.

While adding new reviewers is easy (someone just need to send a patch,
with the Acked-by from the reviewer to be included), getting someone 
removed from it can be very painful (and will likely require some written
policy about how to do that).

Thanks,
Mauro

Powered by blists - more mailing lists