On 06/25/2013 01:17 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
> reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
> or via private email.
>
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
>
> a) not at all
> b) in a single block titled "Reviewers for this version" at the bottom.
> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
b) seems about right.
>
> Should there be a criteria for a "creditable" review?
>
> a) no, all reviews are worthwhile
> b) yes, they have to do more than "it compiles"
> c) yes, only code reviews should count
c). Compilation, functionality and performance tests are useful, but
what we desperately need are in depth code reviews of large patches. If
we debase the currency by rewarding things less than that then any
incentive effect of kudos in encouraging more reviews is lost.
>
> Should reviewers for 9.4 get a "prize", such as a t-shirt, as a
> promotion to increase the number of non-submitter reviewers?
>
> a) yes
> b) no
> c) yes, but submitters and committers should get it too
I'd like to see prizes each release for "best contribution" and "best
reviewer" - I've thought for years something like this would be worth
trying. Committers and core members should not be eligible - this is
about encouraging new people.
cheers
andrew