Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> A good middle ground may be to provide incentives for review. How? >> I’m >> not sure exactly, but first by making it clear that review is makes >> the >> project move forward and is invaluable. You once proposed having >> ‘Reviewed-By’ tags to acknowledge non-committer reviews, and I think >> that would be one step in that direction. Perhaps there are other >> things we could do? > > I was thinking in the opposite direction: not incentives to recognize > reviewers but a closer relationship to the patch submitters, > i.e. “patch buddies” or mentorship. If I made myself officially > responsible for reviewing commits by Simon and all commits touching R > then I’m more likely to actually do the review for these patches. > > Reviews done by people who are not committers could also be > acknowledged, of course, but applying the patch (sometimes > manually because of conflicts) is still manual work that can feel like > a chore if the committer doesn’t feel a connection to the patch or the > person who submitted it.
If you're looking for an occassional guix contributor friend to mentor...I'll gladly volunteer! :) -- Joshua Branson (jab in #guix) Sent from Emacs and Gnus https://gnucode.me https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels https://propernaming.org "You can have whatever you want, as long as you help enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar
