Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:06:55 +0530 | From | "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND or not ATTEND] That's the question! |
| |
On 07/06/2012 03:41 PM, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 11:54:52AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 01:43:06PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> The same way we have checkpatch, we can have something automated that >>> will attempt to rule out some trivial patches in the counting process. >>> We can scan a patch, and easily determine if each part of it is: >>> >>> * pure whitespace >>> * pure Documentation change >>> * comment fix >>> >>> And if a patch is 100 % comprised by those, we simply don't count it. >>> People that just want to increase their numbers - they will always >>> exist, will tend to stop doing that. Simply because doing it will not >>> help them at all. >> >> OTOH, documentation changes or comment fixes, and even sometimes pure whitespace >> fixes, can be very valuable contributions. This can be a useful and ungrateful >> work and that deserve credit. >> >> We just can't find an automated and right way to evaluate a contribution. > > Well what about submitters and maintainers labeling patches below the > SOB with tags like the following? > > Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> > Tags: docu whitespace trivial > > Part of the review would be making sure the labels fit. >
Please no! I don't see why we should clutter the changelog with tags for reasons as unimportant as measuring some patch's value!
Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat
| |