From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:46:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230822094613.bxtsjlnkhaypoflj@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e7554530-a1a5-216f-9a17-7cf763ee6a9d@oracle.com>
On Mon 21-08-23 21:23:18, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 8/19/23 08:45, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > It is worth to try to get honest feedback from active developers/contributors/vendors
> > what is their "real" excuse for not doing code review.
> >
> > I saw in this thread about "have no time to do code review" answers and we
> > all can relate to it, but IMHO it is just an excuse and not the real reason.
> > Especially for a people who are employed by big corporations to do their
> > upstream work.
>
> For some drive-by or would-be reviewers, at least, I think part of the
> problem is perverse or misaligned incentives.
>
> If you write code and your patches are accepted in the kernel, it counts
> towards your commit count, which is a metric that people look at, for
> better or worse (probably worse).
>
> When you review a patch and you find some problem with it, the patch
> will NOT get accepted in the kernel (at least not in that form), and
> your name will NOT appear in the git log. So in a way, in order for
> your contribution to get recorded, you have to give the patch a
> passing grade -OR- you are now on the hook to keep reviewing every
> following iteration of the patch until it's in a state where you're
> completely sure it doesn't have any problems.
>
> (Of course, if you just rubber-stamp your Reviewed-by: on everything
> then you are bound to be found out sooner or later -- or at the very
> least seen as an unreliable reviewer.)
>
> But let's assume you don't give out your Reviewed-by: without having
> REALLY checked the patch thoroughly. Even then, mistakes can slip in.
> In a way, being a reviewer and missing something critical is even
> worse than being the author and missing something critical. Is it even
> worth putting your Reviewed-by: on something if you're not 100% sure
> this patch is not going to cause an issue? Are people going to trust
> you in the future if you make a mistake in your review?
>
> Let's say you're completely sure you found an issue with the patch. Why
> not just stay silent, hope that nobody catches it, and then submit your
> own patch later to fix it? That will get your name in the log. Even
> worse, if it's a security issue you can maybe write an exploit for it
> and either get a bounty from Google or sell it for serious $$$ to
> various malicious actors. [Note that I'm not saying most people would do
> this; I don't know. I am just using it as an example to show that the
> incentives are disproportionate.]
>
> The incentives that remain (as far as I can tell) are:
>
> 1) you get familiar with a specific part of the kernel, and
> 2) you get goodwill and recognition from other kernel developers.
I agree it is good to create positive incentives to provide good review.
But I believe what really makes people do good reviews is the sense of
common responsibility - you don't want buggy or misdesigned stuff to get
into the subsystem you work with because that's going to make life harder
for everybody including you in the future. And I understand the "tragedy of
commons" (IOW selfishness) works against this so incentives or
review-trading or other methods can help but ultimately it is IMHO about
making people understand and accept this shared responsibility...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-22 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-16 18:08 [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout Josef Bacik
2023-08-16 20:14 ` Luis Chamberlain
2023-08-17 9:39 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-17 12:36 ` Andrew Lunn
2023-08-17 15:19 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-08-17 23:54 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-08-18 13:55 ` Linus Walleij
2023-08-18 15:09 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-08-18 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-08-19 6:45 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-21 15:35 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-22 7:41 ` Jiri Kosina
2023-08-22 9:05 ` Hannes Reinecke
2023-08-22 10:13 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-22 11:25 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-21 19:23 ` Vegard Nossum
2023-08-22 4:07 ` Dave Airlie
2023-08-22 9:46 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2023-08-22 10:10 ` Christian Brauner
2023-08-22 10:20 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-22 11:29 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-22 11:05 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-22 11:32 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-22 13:47 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-08-22 13:30 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-29 12:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-09-13 9:02 ` Dan Carpenter
2023-08-21 8:50 ` Daniel Vetter
2023-08-21 15:18 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-08-22 4:12 ` Dave Airlie
2023-08-18 15:26 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-18 15:40 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2023-08-18 18:36 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-21 16:13 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-18 16:10 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-21 16:04 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-24 21:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-08-25 7:05 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2023-08-17 12:00 ` Jani Nikula
2023-08-17 12:17 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-17 12:42 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-17 13:56 ` Miguel Ojeda
2023-08-17 15:03 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-17 17:41 ` Miguel Ojeda
2023-08-18 15:30 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-18 16:23 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-18 17:17 ` Laurent Pinchart
2023-08-18 18:00 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-17 14:46 ` Mark Brown
2023-08-17 14:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-08-17 15:31 ` Jani Nikula
2023-08-17 14:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-08-17 15:33 ` Josef Bacik
2023-08-17 17:10 ` Rodrigo Vivi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230822094613.bxtsjlnkhaypoflj@quack3 \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=ksummit@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).