From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753208AbYDQT5f (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:57:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752686AbYDQT5K (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:57:10 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]:62701 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752644AbYDQT5H (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:57:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=weFurQfAl/FBVlkSJ4BxlUj/oF73u5vxAr/jHpxbla9yA8UrkwxIwDP/AQ9kxVe1b5965Q4qrreqOP6rM6zhSXf/1wWZta94wePTi29ZLQIfNOgQqvPzC5D8Vk/gi/oII4B0nWSD12aYiOVWxtDMojKPR8DcdrTmIQzAiKucdlk= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:57:06 +0200 From: "Sverre Rabbelier" Reply-To: sverre@rabbelier.nl To: "Ray Lee" Subject: Re: Reporting bugs and bisection Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "David Newall" , "Jesper Juhl" , git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , "James Morris" , "Al Viro" , "Andrew Morton" , "Willy Tarreau" , david@lang.hm, "Stephen Clark" , "Evgeniy Polyakov" , "Tilman Schmidt" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "Mark Lord" , "David Miller" , yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <2c0942db0804171235o49238b99u6cdbd3e5c8d6ebb7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47FEADCB.7070104@rtr.ca> <9a8748490804161417n4ad6c1den54ccd302831a66c6@mail.gmail.com> <48078323.4010109@davidnewall.com> <200804172109.35027.rjw@sisk.pl> <2c0942db0804171235o49238b99u6cdbd3e5c8d6ebb7@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Ray Lee wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Finger-pointing, in these extreme cases, gives incentive to improve > > > quality. It's a positive thing. > > > > Sorry, but I have to disagree. Negative finger-pointing is never a good thing. > > Correct, but let's be careful here. The original suggestion was, > effectively, to get better metrics on the quality of contributions. > Those metrics *could* be used for finger pointing, or (my preference) > they could be used to direct and allocate our scarce resources: code > reviews and mentoring. Exactly! > There's no way to know what the metrics will tell us until we have > them. Arguing against metrics because they *may* be used to point > fingers at people is a silly argument; anything can be subverted to do > that. Thank you, that should have been said before, you worded it perfectly. > Let's get some measurements and see what they say. In the meantime, > try to believe that they could be put to good purposes, such as > identifying code areas that are tricky for contributors to get right > (independent of contributor), or contributors that could benefit from > code reviews, etc. This especially is an area that I plan to focus on and should be very reliable when finished. As can be read in my application, I plan to look at how often a piece of code is changed, in what timespan and by how many different authors. Thanks for the reply! Cheers, Sverre