Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [RFC PATCH 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Subsystem Profile

[NeilBrown]

On Fri, Nov 16 2018, Dan Williams wrote:

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature