On 06/25/2013 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Hackers,
>
> I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge
> reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list
> or via private email.
>
> 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
C. The idea that reviewers are somehow less than authors is rather
disheartening.
>
> 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. I think it compiles, and I tested it via X should be the minimum.
Here is a case. I was considering taking a review of the new Gin Cache
patch. I can't really do a "code" review but I can certainly run
benchmarking tests before/after and apply the patch etc.
>
> 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
>
> Thanks for your feedback!
>
B. We already give them a multi-million dollar piece of software for free.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats
