Re: Only 27% of reviewed-by tags are explicit, and much more

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:00 PM Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM Felipe Contreras
> > <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Here are the top 20 reviewers over the past 10 years with their
> > > corresponding explicit over total Reviewed-by count:
> > >    ...
> > >   5. Eric Sunshine: 14% (17/116)
> >
> > Does your script check cover letters? Based upon a quick glance at it,
> > it doesn't seem to.
>
> Not really, that's a good point.
>
> > Although I've reviewed thousands of patches over the years, I almost
> > never give my Reviewed-by:; it is an exceedingly rare occurrence.
> > However, when I do give it, it's almost always in response to the
> > cover letter (saying "this entire series is reviewed by <me>"), not in
> > response to individual patches. I've seen other reviewers do so, as
> > well. So, if your script doesn't take cover letters into account, then
> > you might want to revise it to do so in order to get a more accurate
> > picture.
>
> I've updated the script to consider all responses to the cover letter
> that start with 'Re: '.
>
> Anyway, with the updated script the explicit reviewed-bys are 40%, and
> here are the stats:
>
>   5. Eric Sunshine: 38% (45/116)
>
> You got considerably more, from 17 to 45, but still pretty far from a
> 100%.

The numbers produced by your script don't agree with my own
investigative spelunking through my own mailbox. What I found is that,
via 33 emails, I've given my Reviewed-by: to 133 patches[1]. If the
116 computed by your script is accurate, then that means that not all
of my Reviewed-by:'s made it into the project, which is believable.
Nevertheless, according to my own mailbox -- accounting for 133
patches -- I have almost certainly given an explicit Reviewed-by: to
all 116 of those patches your script found, which means the script
output should probably be "100% (116/116)". This mismatch between your
script output and my own investigation throws doubt upon the
script-generated tallies for other people, as well.

(Aside: I also gave another 37 explicit Reviewed-by:'s via another 7
emails[2], however, the authors of those series ended up re-rolling
after my Reviewed-by:, so I did not count those in the numbers I
presented above. There also have been several times when patch
submitters added my Reviewed-by: in error[3], though I don't think
those ever made it into the project.)

[1]: explicitly given Reviewed-by: (patch-count, message-id)

10: CAPig+cSXi7Ct48gqkBVvBtOm6bMqDhPcxXeiK3ZytAitZXNT5Q@mail.gmail.com
7: CAPig+cTt-TyOR8kc6YvBVLpf-bgFdJ+FVYA2NvG_Vvn7tMbBkQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cS7SEARwoBn25SsxhkvdJfDe56FyVjDGk+sJq2kXfDbjQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cS8hvX4GCsnfLBnQ4Q_AkUad=bw7rjVcaOqSEqcLZvx8w@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cQxvq3MzyB3e8-ZeVSdCot04=9p4L8CZRnpYbrmnR70_g@mail.gmail.com
39: CAPig+cTxfheSPHJvC3_=jQjef0S7FiMEWCQ71ER7epfpeD_5OQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cSDxBFhnJSmH+WzNZBjY4O0OczazZ7EOqn1P=zgL+ec4g@mail.gmail.com
4: CAPig+cRor4UXXZhoAkhOQfe6W+oC84YFmA-KwpLspuEh_A4Zng@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cTgoD-GvpoBQ6tcGX4T2XhuKccJAZ40P76vxVD_PfEc9A@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cTcqSa6AfeMQivnSdL=y2+WWw2MtSavDciMc84RcKURMA@mail.gmail.com
5: CAPig+cQVaMOKtbUCWdZqYDO8ZUZkVcSJH14S=2xrZiDVJ59Xdg@mail.gmail.com
6: CAPig+cQ2NRO4yaFkcGmUpY3TZcWkdg-vu6d7Fq7JgHzYSkcRgg@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cS4Bj4N8d1a29z8=f30owOec1pB=yF32ZUPmDH2Tu2kXA@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cQPbwM0+6yruK0VKKq2ujFLoCLogS7eQNN7WWgRjG5V0w@mail.gmail.com
6: CAPig+cR9i1a7pxOxV4QU2TnoJWKn4mHHVT2tG3+uRysw=sc6qQ@mail.gmail.com
7: CAPig+cR3diDfn893-ExKNZps=C7Z=M7DFAy-zbJzH3wKCmxVeQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cRimDGFDk7A2p2rKpJ2GR27_R=BJdpyPK4xeyDU1TruWQ@mail.gmail.com
5: CAPig+cQPFzgEgdNUJSa9baUvc4BuJp8BHOLA88QJqW8N3hE8AQ@mail.gmail.com
11: CAPig+cS8sJn9tV2kW=ASN2wTtKiK-H5oa8bThiiGfu_vMv7DoQ@mail.gmail.com
1: 20160216050915.GA5765@flurp.local
1: CAPig+cSxVdZN_wr3XuqDGuKn14J3B7s=S8OoH19v+AjMvcX6+Q@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cTaOTfwzodKSabdy9HFbF66RuEXwmvjZ8QuQVFMaVpA7w@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cSSdGeMuV1XLqROXvSeYfmkNc_N7E_pzfJWdDR6wfD80A@mail.gmail.com
2: CAPig+cRySp4_uJYAwC-PY_Yh-YjBb0y1Tq=TwoD7d-Bpb_YANg@mail.gmail.com
5: CAPig+cQtYjyj2dVFX_8CjyacRPd+dU6aMMXYGsoX9+q+zgjdZQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cSuCouNCuKa99mct4UMPykuMVy3+7sqB6y+v+UtP2oeTw@mail.gmail.com
2: CAPig+cSC8RZJ-+uP=ZExVH2ZyexfQmLjzdjoBA7yuWkdYE4EGQ@mail.gmail.com
3: CAPig+cQ-yLnjrsB1E-7=UXfGzuJHat6YtfS8EVRNP2dcjj_6TA@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cT0-ftZZyRORx-W2_Nit6XdgrpiyGS=pRjGtHoz1jW+Kg@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cQb6k8ktWR5Fz+dstfhFj5dZ+kpfzVk1Vp5piYJ3zy4rg@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cRd5+9nq3YNA6e1R_tvmBTHByOg-=KRWG1m3Fxb0e_vFQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cRpD0B2YRZYyJVUiM70AFcduTPOuJsuRFFKZE+bXttW1Q@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cSuBfuzL-NXYkvFoz5+jPrEUNfTqoMf-iAYyMSv3jDsqg@mail.gmail.com

[2]: explicitly given Reviewed-by: but submitter ended up re-rolling

6: CAPig+cRz4stVQWFD-NroVHft2xFvyZJi1ePX9T4zZ3k3=X6ZrA@mail.gmail.com
6: CAPig+cSmb9wFCV+9PS4LYfd3hAH5s6ifRk8orVv+e2Q=h7F3Ag@mail.gmail.com
6: CAPig+cQ4n5j4Q-WF-0cd=2+5eSAaimh3A7La+8Fe9Ox4anjtBQ@mail.gmail.com
1: 20160327194948.GA9295@flurp.local
12: CAPig+cTrh4u7vgQRXOT0a-5St2a6TV4qfhOMCVSetbQD0kGTrQ@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cTCRq9VCT7t8E9yjk4QcHYB2_qeBwGB_31keB4nTjkLkA@mail.gmail.com
5: 20150519004356.GA12854@flurp.local

[3]: Reviewed-by: not explicitly given

11: CAPig+cRmz2C7mAzc7Z=ZStAxd3qDSmbC4sbwyLGKqvkf2yzVPA@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cQG16AhLPMeOFAw1GF81oXivFSDHvQ5B8kX20YGAT_BxQ@mail.gmail.com
2: CAPig+cRryaafwP4gBLe_6ebWZo12HWtEC6e2CbbP6a5gVh6W4w@mail.gmail.com
7: CAPig+cR0jG65LbopxqPpidaaNUSTRq9tboZpv0RPWyWUkSEGUw@mail.gmail.com
1: CAPig+cR=u_ak_=J=gSAWfiNB01R7FBG+bCrx+k1HNAE0xHtwFQ@mail.gmail.com