> On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 08:28:59AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 10:16 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> 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.
