On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:00 PM Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Eric Sunshine wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM Felipe Contreras > > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Here are the top 20 reviewers over the past 10 years with their > > > corresponding explicit over total Reviewed-by count: > > > ... > > > 5. Eric Sunshine: 14% (17/116) > > > > Does your script check cover letters? Based upon a quick glance at it, > > it doesn't seem to. > > Not really, that's a good point. > > > Although I've reviewed thousands of patches over the years, I almost > > never give my Reviewed-by:; it is an exceedingly rare occurrence. > > However, when I do give it, it's almost always in response to the > > cover letter (saying "this entire series is reviewed by <me>"), not in > > response to individual patches. I've seen other reviewers do so, as > > well. So, if your script doesn't take cover letters into account, then > > you might want to revise it to do so in order to get a more accurate > > picture. > > I've updated the script to consider all responses to the cover letter > that start with 'Re: '. > > Anyway, with the updated script the explicit reviewed-bys are 40%, and > here are the stats: > > 5. Eric Sunshine: 38% (45/116) > > You got considerably more, from 17 to 45, but still pretty far from a > 100%. The numbers produced by your script don't agree with my own investigative spelunking through my own mailbox. What I found is that, via 33 emails, I've given my Reviewed-by: to 133 patches[1]. If the 116 computed by your script is accurate, then that means that not all of my Reviewed-by:'s made it into the project, which is believable. Nevertheless, according to my own mailbox -- accounting for 133 patches -- I have almost certainly given an explicit Reviewed-by: to all 116 of those patches your script found, which means the script output should probably be "100% (116/116)". This mismatch between your script output and my own investigation throws doubt upon the script-generated tallies for other people, as well. (Aside: I also gave another 37 explicit Reviewed-by:'s via another 7 emails[2], however, the authors of those series ended up re-rolling after my Reviewed-by:, so I did not count those in the numbers I presented above. There also have been several times when patch submitters added my Reviewed-by: in error[3], though I don't think those ever made it into the project.) [1]: explicitly given Reviewed-by: (patch-count, message-id) 10: CAPig+cSXi7Ct48gqkBVvBtOm6bMqDhPcxXeiK3ZytAitZXNT5Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7: CAPig+cTt-TyOR8kc6YvBVLpf-bgFdJ+FVYA2NvG_Vvn7tMbBkQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cS7SEARwoBn25SsxhkvdJfDe56FyVjDGk+sJq2kXfDbjQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cS8hvX4GCsnfLBnQ4Q_AkUad=bw7rjVcaOqSEqcLZvx8w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cQxvq3MzyB3e8-ZeVSdCot04=9p4L8CZRnpYbrmnR70_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 39: CAPig+cTxfheSPHJvC3_=jQjef0S7FiMEWCQ71ER7epfpeD_5OQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cSDxBFhnJSmH+WzNZBjY4O0OczazZ7EOqn1P=zgL+ec4g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4: CAPig+cRor4UXXZhoAkhOQfe6W+oC84YFmA-KwpLspuEh_A4Zng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cTgoD-GvpoBQ6tcGX4T2XhuKccJAZ40P76vxVD_PfEc9A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cTcqSa6AfeMQivnSdL=y2+WWw2MtSavDciMc84RcKURMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5: CAPig+cQVaMOKtbUCWdZqYDO8ZUZkVcSJH14S=2xrZiDVJ59Xdg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6: CAPig+cQ2NRO4yaFkcGmUpY3TZcWkdg-vu6d7Fq7JgHzYSkcRgg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cS4Bj4N8d1a29z8=f30owOec1pB=yF32ZUPmDH2Tu2kXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cQPbwM0+6yruK0VKKq2ujFLoCLogS7eQNN7WWgRjG5V0w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6: CAPig+cR9i1a7pxOxV4QU2TnoJWKn4mHHVT2tG3+uRysw=sc6qQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7: CAPig+cR3diDfn893-ExKNZps=C7Z=M7DFAy-zbJzH3wKCmxVeQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cRimDGFDk7A2p2rKpJ2GR27_R=BJdpyPK4xeyDU1TruWQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5: CAPig+cQPFzgEgdNUJSa9baUvc4BuJp8BHOLA88QJqW8N3hE8AQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11: CAPig+cS8sJn9tV2kW=ASN2wTtKiK-H5oa8bThiiGfu_vMv7DoQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: 20160216050915.GA5765@flurp.local 1: CAPig+cSxVdZN_wr3XuqDGuKn14J3B7s=S8OoH19v+AjMvcX6+Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cTaOTfwzodKSabdy9HFbF66RuEXwmvjZ8QuQVFMaVpA7w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cSSdGeMuV1XLqROXvSeYfmkNc_N7E_pzfJWdDR6wfD80A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2: CAPig+cRySp4_uJYAwC-PY_Yh-YjBb0y1Tq=TwoD7d-Bpb_YANg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5: CAPig+cQtYjyj2dVFX_8CjyacRPd+dU6aMMXYGsoX9+q+zgjdZQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cSuCouNCuKa99mct4UMPykuMVy3+7sqB6y+v+UtP2oeTw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2: CAPig+cSC8RZJ-+uP=ZExVH2ZyexfQmLjzdjoBA7yuWkdYE4EGQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3: CAPig+cQ-yLnjrsB1E-7=UXfGzuJHat6YtfS8EVRNP2dcjj_6TA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cT0-ftZZyRORx-W2_Nit6XdgrpiyGS=pRjGtHoz1jW+Kg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cQb6k8ktWR5Fz+dstfhFj5dZ+kpfzVk1Vp5piYJ3zy4rg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cRd5+9nq3YNA6e1R_tvmBTHByOg-=KRWG1m3Fxb0e_vFQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cRpD0B2YRZYyJVUiM70AFcduTPOuJsuRFFKZE+bXttW1Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cSuBfuzL-NXYkvFoz5+jPrEUNfTqoMf-iAYyMSv3jDsqg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [2]: explicitly given Reviewed-by: but submitter ended up re-rolling 6: CAPig+cRz4stVQWFD-NroVHft2xFvyZJi1ePX9T4zZ3k3=X6ZrA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6: CAPig+cSmb9wFCV+9PS4LYfd3hAH5s6ifRk8orVv+e2Q=h7F3Ag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6: CAPig+cQ4n5j4Q-WF-0cd=2+5eSAaimh3A7La+8Fe9Ox4anjtBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: 20160327194948.GA9295@flurp.local 12: CAPig+cTrh4u7vgQRXOT0a-5St2a6TV4qfhOMCVSetbQD0kGTrQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cTCRq9VCT7t8E9yjk4QcHYB2_qeBwGB_31keB4nTjkLkA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5: 20150519004356.GA12854@flurp.local [3]: Reviewed-by: not explicitly given 11: CAPig+cRmz2C7mAzc7Z=ZStAxd3qDSmbC4sbwyLGKqvkf2yzVPA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cQG16AhLPMeOFAw1GF81oXivFSDHvQ5B8kX20YGAT_BxQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2: CAPig+cRryaafwP4gBLe_6ebWZo12HWtEC6e2CbbP6a5gVh6W4w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 7: CAPig+cR0jG65LbopxqPpidaaNUSTRq9tboZpv0RPWyWUkSEGUw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1: CAPig+cR=u_ak_=J=gSAWfiNB01R7FBG+bCrx+k1HNAE0xHtwFQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
