On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?
> c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch
This not only makes sense, it also lets people reading release notes
know there's been a review, and how thorough it was. I know, all
changes in PG get reviewed, but having it explicit on release notes I
imagine would be useful. Especially if I know the reviewers.
The co-author part also makes a lot of sense. When a reviewer
introduces changes directly, and they get committed, I think it should
be automatically considered co-authoring the patch.
> Should there be a criteria for a "creditable" review?
>
> a) no, all reviews are worthwhile
It's not that they're all worthwhile, but arbitrary decisions lend
themselves to arbitrary criticism. Whatever criteria should be
straightforward, unambiguous and unbiased, and it's hard getting all
those three in any other criteria than: all are worthwhile.
> b) yes, they have to do more than "it compiles"
This one's better than nothing, if you must have a minimum criteria.
But then people will just point out some trivial stuff and you'd be
tempted to say that trivialities don't count... and you get a snowball
going. IMHO, it's all or nothing.
> Should reviewers for 9.4 get a "prize", such as a t-shirt, as a
> promotion to increase the number of non-submitter reviewers?
>
> b) no
Yeah, while a fun idea, I don't think the logistics of it make it
worth the effort. Too much effort for too little benefit.
And I think recognition is a far better incentive than T-shirts
anyway. I know I'd be encouraged to review patches for the recognition
alone, a lot more than for a T-shirt I might not get. Contributing is
nice, but feeling appreciated while doing so is better.