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  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]
Date:   Fri, 7 Oct 2022 09:44:27 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <>
Subject: Re: netdev development stats for 6.1?

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:27:21PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Hi!
> For a while now I had been curious if we can squeeze any interesting
> stats from the ML traffic. In particular I was curious "who is helping",
> who is reviewing the most patches (but based on the emails sent not just
> review tags).
> I quickly wrote a script to scan emails sent to netdev since 5.19 was
> tagged (~14k) and count any message which has subject starting with
> '[' as a patch and anything else as a comment/review. It's not very
> scientific but the result for the most part matches my expectations.
> A disclaimer first - this methodology puts me ahead because I send
> a lot of emails. Most of them are not reviews, so ignore me.
> Second question to address upfront is whether publishing stats is
> useful or mostly risks people treating participation as a competition
> and trying to game the system? Hard to say, but if even a single person
> can point to these stats to help justify more time spent reviewing to
> their management - it's worth it.
> That said feedback is very welcome, public or private.

I think that it is right initiative which will make netdev community
stronger and wider.

As for the feedback, which express my personal view as an outsider in netdev.

I think that more clear goals for that statistics can help to purify
which tables are actually needed as I'm sure that not all are needed.

My goals are:
1. See that load spreads more equity. It will indirectly cause to spread
of the knowledge. The most active reviewers are the most knowledgeable
developers too.
2. Push companies to participate in code maintenance (review) and not
only enjoy from free rides.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists