David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > It's still largely free form, loose, and flexible. I think Al's point was that we need far more "free form, loose and flexible" work for reviewing code. As in people going over trees and just checking it for anything suspicious and going over existing code and checking it for anything suspicious and going also over mailing list patch posts. And also maintainers who appreciate such review. And checking it for anything suspicious does not mean running only checkpatch.pl or even just sparse, but actually reading it and trying to make sense of it. I don't see that really as conflicting with your goals. It would be some more work for the maintainers to handle more such feedback because they would need to process comments from such "free form reviewers". Some of them will undoutedly be wrong and that will take some time away from processing features (and bugs) but I suspect it would be still worth it. On the other hand it would also take some work away from processing bugs, but as Andrew mentions earlier it looks like significant parts of the boring areas of bug reports (like getting basic information from reporter etc.) could be "out-sourced" to bug masters. And I think being a bug master is an excellent way for someone who isn't a great coder to contribute in excellent ways to Linux (far more than someone e.g. running checkpatch.pl ever could) The challenging thing is also to make sure that the quality of comments stays high. That means more focus on logic and functionality than on form. If the reviewer just goes over the coding style or trivialities I don't think that will improve Linux really. I think the problem is often that people think kernel code must be very complicated and they don't even dare try to understand it. But frankly a lot of the kernel code is not really that complicated logic wise and also doesn't need too specialized knowledge to understand. So I am optimistic that there are a lot of people out there who would be qualified to do some logic review. Really Linux needs a better "reviewing culture" and also a better "bug processing culture" > We can ask more subsystem tree maintainers to run their trees more > strictly, review patches more closely, etc. But, be honest, good luck > getting that from the guys who do subsystem maintainence in their > spare time on the weekends. The remaining cases should know better, > or simply don't care. In my experience weekend maintainers tend to be better at sharing out work. As in they usually (ok there are exceptions) more work including review work on the mailing lists, while my impression is that paid for maintainers tend to have tendency for more centralized "cathedral" tree maintenance. That is with them trying to keep everything under control and effectively much more stuff going on the background out of public view. But the sharing out of work and less centralization is what we really want here I think. Anyways I'm not saying all paid-for maintainers are like this, but there is certainly a trend I think. I admit I personally went through both phases in several projects. When you're really focussed on something it is tempting to do the "keep things under control" central model, but in the end it is the wrong way to go. -Andi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
