On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > 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
A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As others have suggested, a review that leads to significant commitable changes to the patch should bump the credit to co-authorship.
I like the "single block at the bottom" myself, with the same provision to move a reviewer up to co-author.
> 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
(b), the review should at least look at usabililty, doc, and regression test criteria even if there is no in-depth code analysis.
+1 to this.
> 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 was going to go with b until I saw the suggestion for a PgCon ticket. I really like that idea.