* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > So, then, I have a proposal for criteria for getting on the contributors
> > list via patch review:
> >
> > - substantial, deep review of at least one patch (including detailed
> > code review and possible corrections)
> >
> > - "functionality" reviews of at least 3 patches, including full
> > write-ups (not just "it compiled, seems to work").
> >
> > Kibitz as you may, but please don't try to make these criteria more
> > *complicated*, because there's no way we'll ever keep track.
>
> The problem with complicated rules (which these, I think, already are)
I tend to agree that we want to avoid complicated rules. The corollary
to that is the concern Andrew raised about my earlier off-the-cuff
proposal- how do we avoid debasing the value of being recognized as a PG
contributor?
> is how to keep track of people that helps to which level. I make a
> point of crediting reviewers and code contributors in my commit
> messages, but can you tell which ones of the following guys should make
> it to these lists? I yanked this text from my commit
> 73c986adde5d73a5e2555da9b5c8facedb146dcd:
>
> Reviewed to varying degrees by Michael Paquier, Andres Freund, Robert
> Haas, Amit Kapila, Fujii Masao, Jaime Casanova, Simon Riggs, Steven
> Singer, Peter Eisentraut
>
> I do agree that we need to give credit in some form, though. I'm just
> saying can we please not put the responsibility on committers.
Ugh, yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to have to work out some complex
set of rules to be applied before each commit to define who can be
considered a "reviewer". That said, most of the above list are
committers and those who aren't should be recognized in some fashion, so
I'm not sure that this is really a good example.
I don't have a good example of "someone mentioned as a reviewer in the
git message but who doesn't deserve recognition" though and I'm actually
not sure that we even have such an example in our git history.. If so,
well, I'd rather err on the side of being more inclusive than less
inclusive anyway.
Thanks,
Stephen
