Message-ID: <c3d277bd-032a-9dbb-59ae-fbca6af8554e@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 8 Oct 2022 23:21:38 -0400
From:   Sean Anderson <seanga2@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: netdev development stats for 6.1?

On 10/5/22 00:27, 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.
> 
> 
> The stats are by number of threads and number of messages.
> 
>   Top 10 reviewers (thr):            Top 10 reviewers (msg):
>     1. [320] Jakub Kicinski            1. [538] Jakub Kicinski
>     2. [134] Andrew Lunn               2. [263] Andrew Lunn
>     3. [ 51] Krzysztof Kozlowski       3. [122] Krzysztof Kozlowski
>     4. [ 51] Paolo Abeni               4. [ 80] Rob Herring
>     5. [ 47] Eric Dumazet              5. [ 78] Eric Dumazet
>     6. [ 46] Rob Herring               6. [ 70] Paolo Abeni
>     7. [ 35] Florian Fainelli          7. [ 65] Vladimir Oltean
>     8. [ 35] Kalle Valo                8. [ 58] Ido Schimmel
>     9. [ 32] David Ahern               9. [ 58] Michael S. Tsirkin
>    10. [ 31] Vladimir Oltean          10. [ 57] Russell King
> 
> 
> These seem to make sense, but the volume-centric view shows.
> Note that the numbers are very close so the exact order is
> of little importance. The names should be familiar to everyone,
> I hope :)
> 
> 
>   Top 10 authors (thr):              Top 10 authors (msg):
>     1. [ 84] Zhengchao Shao            1. [287] Zhengchao Shao
>     2. [ 52] Vladimir Oltean           2. [232] Vladimir Oltean
>     3. [ 43] Jakub Kicinski            3. [166] Saeed Mahameed
>     4. [ 28] Tony Nguyen               4. [156] Kuniyuki Iwashima
>     5. [ 28] cgel.zte@...il.com        5. [134] Sean Anderson
>     6. [ 23] Stephen Rothwell          6. [122] Oleksij Rempel
>     7. [ 23] Hangbin Liu               7. [106] Tony Nguyen
>     8. [ 20] Wolfram Sang              8. [ 93] Mattias Forsblad
>     9. [ 20] Kuniyuki Iwashima         9. [ 93] Jian Shen
>    10. [ 20] Jiri Pirko               10. [ 86] Jakub Kicinski
> 
> 
> Here Stephen is probably by accident as I was counting his merge
> resolutions as patches.
> 
> What is clear tho (with the notable exception of Vladimir)
> - most of the authors are not making the top reviewer list :(
> 
> 
> And here is the part that I was most curious about.
> Calculate a "score" which is roughly:
>     10 * reviews - 3 * authorship,
> to see who is a "good citizen":
> 
>   Top 10 scores (positive):          Top 10 scores (negative):
>     1. [4102] Jakub Kicinski           1. [397] Zhengchao Shao
>     2. [1848] Andrew Lunn              2. [116] Kuniyuki Iwashima
>     3. [737] Krzysztof Kozlowski       3. [105] cgel.zte@...il.com
>     4. [620] Paolo Abeni               4. [ 93] Mattias Forsblad
>     5. [611] Rob Herring               5. [ 82] Yang Yingliang
>     6. [588] Eric Dumazet              6. [ 82] Sean Anderson
>     7. [429] Florian Fainelli          7. [ 77] Daniel Lezcano
>     8. [418] Kalle Valo                8. [ 68] Stephen Rothwell
>     9. [406] David Ahern               9. [ 67] Arun Ramadoss
>    10. [344] Russell King             10. [ 64] Wang Yufen
> 
> 
> Now looking at companies.
> 
> [Using my very rough mapping of people to company based on email
> domain and manual mapping for major contributors]
> 
>   Top 7 reviewers (thr):     Top 7 reviewers (msg):
>     1. [369] Meta              1. [640] Meta
>     2. [139] Intel             2. [306] RedHat
>     3. [134] Andrew Lunn       3. [263] Andrew Lunn
>     4. [127] RedHat            4. [243] Intel
>     5. [ 80] nVidia            5. [193] nVidia
>     6. [ 71] Google            6. [134] Linaro
>     7. [ 61] Linaro            7. [121] Google
> 
>   Top 8 authors (thr):       Top 7 authors (msg):
>     1. [207] Huawei            1. [640] Huawei
>     2. [103] nVidia            2. [496] nVidia
>     3. [ 96] Intel             3. [342] Intel
>     4. [ 94] RedHat            4. [332] RedHat
>     5. [ 75] Google            5. [263] NXP
>     6. [ 60] Microchip         6. [170] Linaro
>     7. [ 59] NXP               7. [157] Amazon
>     8. [ 51] Meta
> 
> Top 12 scores (positive):     Top 12 scores (negative):
>     1. [4763] Meta               1. [887] Huawei
>     2. [1848] Andrew Lunn        2. [145] Microchip
>     3. [1432] RedHat             3. [105] ZTE
>     4. [1415] Intel              4. [ 95] Amazon
>     5. [ 680] Linaro             5. [ 93] Mattias Forsblad
>     6. [ 652] Google             6. [ 68] Stephen Rothwell
>     7. [ 627] nVidia             7. [ 59] Wolfram Sang
>     8. [ 609] Rob Herring        8. [ 57] wei.fang@....com
>     9. [ 429] Florian Fainelli   9. [ 56] Arınç ÜNAL
>    10. [ 418] Kalle Valo        10. [ 53] Sean Anderson
>    11. [ 368] Russell King      11. [ 48] Maxime Chevallier
>    12. [ 356] David Ahern       12. [ 46] Jianguo Zhang
> 
> 
> The bot operators top the list of "bad citizens" as they do not
> contribute to the review process. Microchip and Amazon also seem
> to send a lot more code than they help to review.
> 
> Huge *thank you* to all the reviewers!

Well, it seems I've made some of the "negative" lists. In my defense,

- I had to make several revisions to the series I was working on. 134
    sent patches turned into only 36 commits (so far). From what I've been
    told, it seems like you're supposed to resend the series after a week
    or so after making changes in response to feedback. I would prefer to
    resend less often, only after each patch without a RB has gotten
    feedback, but that usually doesn't happen for whatever reason.
- I don't think I'm familiar enough with the net subsystem to review
    most patches. I think I could review some phylink stuff, but that's
    about it. This subsystem is very intimidating. It often takes me a lot
    of effort to determine the correct thing to do in my own patches,
    much less someone else's patches for unfamiliar hardware.
- I *do* review patches... on other projects. I'm fairly active on
    the U-Boot mailing lists, where I review patches for the clock
    subsystem. Of course, I do that in my free time. I try to upstream the
    patches I write, but that's pretty unusual for my company. There's no
    allocated time for "giving back," and most of my peers don't see the
    value in it.

I think the approach taken here is a bit reductive, and not too
holistic. That said, I do appreciate the netdev reviewers a lot.
Submitting patches here is much nicer than in some other subsystems.

--Sean

Powered by blists - more mailing lists