On 2013-06-25 10:17:07 -0700, Josh Berkus 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
b). If the review was substantial enough the reviewer gets bumped to a secondary author, just as it already happens. > 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). Surely performance reviews should also count, they can be at least as time consuming as a code review, so c) doesn't seem to make sense. > 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 Not sure. Seems like it might be a way to spend a lot of effort without achieving all that much. But I can also imagine that it feels nice and encourages a casual reviewer/contributor. So it's either b) or c). Although I'd perhaps exclude regular contributors to keep the list reasonable? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
