Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)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.

gabrielle