On Tuesday, 15 of April 2008, David Newall wrote: > Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > On 4/15/08, David Newall <davidn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> James Morris wrote: > >> > I don't know how to solve this, but suspect that encouraging the use of > >> > reviewed-by and also including it in things like analysis of who is > >> > contributing, selection for kernel summit invitations etc. would be a > >> > start. At least, better than nothing. > >> > >> Would it be hard to keep count of the number of errors introduced by > >> author and reviewer? > >> > > > > I've found quite a few errors in kernel-userland APIs, but I'm not > > sure that this sort of negative statistic would be helpful -- e.g., > > more productive developers probably also introduce more errors. > > We can already see which developers are more active. What we can't see > is who is careless, which would be useful to know. It would also be > useful to know who is careless in approving changes, because they share > responsibility for those changes. It would be a good thing if this > highlighted that some people are behind frequent buggy changes. Well, even if someone introduces bugs relatively frequently, but then also works with the reporters and fixes the bugs timely, it's about okay IMO. The real problem is when patch submitters don't care for their changes any more once the patches have been merged. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
