> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 08:28:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 10:16 AM Dmitry Dolgov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Somewhat late to the party (wanted to write right away, got distracted > > for a few moments, and boom -- it's already few months old), but do you > > consider gathering statistics based on Reviewed-by? It might give a > > bit of appreciation for reviewing, which is commonly considered as a > > thankless job, and will be more direct than just measuring amount of > > emails to hackers. > > It's worth considering, but one problem is that reviews vary extremely > widely in terms of how much effort goes into them and how much they > help the patch along. Another is that not all helpful emails are, in a > strict sense, reviews. A third is that Reviewed-by only counts things > that ended up getting committed, while reviews of things that don't > get committed are also quite important. I don't really think that > number of hackers emails is a very good metric, especially in this era > of increasing numbers of AI-generated emails, and I wish I had > something better, but I'm also not convinced that counting Reviewed-by > headers would be that thing. Of course, that's also not to say it's > bad, just that I'm not necessarily excited about doing more work for a > number that I don't completely believe in.
Fair enough.
