On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 3:56 PM apinheiro <apinhe...@igalia.com> wrote: > > > On 12/10/21 13:55, Alyssa Rosenzweig wrote: > > I would love to see this be the process across Mesa. We already don't > rewrite commit messages for freedreno and i915g, and I only have to do > the rebase (busy-)work for my projects in other areas of the tree. > > Likewise for Panfrost. At least, I don't do the rewriting. Some Panfrost > devs do, which I'm fine with. But it's not a requirement to merging. > > The arguments about "who can help support this years from now?" are moot > at our scale... the team is small enough that the name on the reviewer > is likely the code owner / maintainer, and patches regularly go in > unreviewed for lack of review bandwidth. > > There is another reason to the Rb tag, that is to measure the quantity > of patch review people do. > > This was well summarized some years ago by Matt Turner, as it was > minimized (even suggested to be removed) on a different thread: > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2019-January/213586.html > > I was part of the Intel team when people started doing this r-b > counting. I believe that it was being done due to Intel management's > failure to understand who was doing the work on the team and credit > them appropriately, and also to encourage those doing less to step up. > > > That's basically the same problem with trying to measure and compare > developers just by commit count. In theory commit count is a bad measure for > that. In practice it is used somehow. > > Unfortunately, the problem with Intel management wasn't a lack of > available information, and I didn't see publishing the counts change > reviews either. > > 💯 > > Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique" > management. > > > Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel management > it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only by Intel > management. Spoiler: it is not. > > Replying both, that's is one of the reasons I pointed original Matt Turner > email. He never mentioned explicitly Intel management, neither pointed this > as an accurate measure of the use. Quoting: > > "The number of R-b tags is not a 100% accurate picture of the > situation, but it gives at least a good overview of who is doing the > tedious work of patch review. " > > In any case, just to be clear here: Im not saying that the Rb tags main use > is this one. Just saying that is one of their uses, and the value for such > use can be debatable, but it is not zero.
<snark>Negative numbers aren't zero!</snark> --Jason
