|| ||James Morris <jmorris-AT-namei.org>|
|| ||Al Viro <viro-AT-ZenIV.linux.org.uk>|
|| ||Re: Reporting bugs and bisection|
|| ||Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:54:00 +1000 (EST)|
|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w-AT-1wt.eu>, david-AT-lang.hm,
Stephen Clark <sclark46-AT-earthlink.net>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol-AT-2ka.mipt.ru>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-AT-sisk.pl>, Tilman Schmidt <tilman-AT-imap.cc>,
Valdis.Kletnieks-AT-vt.edu, Mark Lord <lkml-AT-rtr.ca>,
David Miller <davem-AT-davemloft.net>, jesper.juhl-AT-gmail.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, git-AT-vger.kernel.org,
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Al Viro wrote:
> Real review of code in tree and patches getting into the tree.
There is currently little incentive for developers to perform review.
It's difficult work, and is generally not rewarded or recognized, except
in often quite negative ways. There is a small handful of people who do a
lot of review, but they are exceptional in various ways.
OTOH, writing code is relatively simple, and is much more highly rewarded:
- People tend to get paid to write kernel code, but not so much to review
- Things like "who made the kernel" statistics and related articles ignore
- Creating new features is perceived as the highest form of contribution
for general developers, and likely important as career currency
(similar to the publish or perish model in the academic world).
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)