On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <j...@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. > 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. > 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 Provisionally (b), if we first try giving proper credit, and that still doesn't drum up enough reviewing, then look to further incentive schemes. No need to jump the gun. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
