On 06/25/2013 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> It's not about the reviewers being less. It's a comparison of
> effort. The effort for a casual review simply isn't comparable with the
> effort spent on developing a nontrivial patch.
I think this is a backwards way to look at it.
The effort may not be comparable but the drudgery certainly is.
Reviewing patches sucks. Writing patches (for the most part) is fun.
Should the patch submitter get first billing? Yes.
Should the reviewer that makes sure to a reasonable level that the patch
is sane also get billing? Absolutely.
Should the reviewer get billing that is about the patch they reviewed. Yes.
As I mentioned before in the release notes something like:
Author: Tom Lane
Reviewer(s): Greg Stark, Andrew Dunstan
I think that is perfectly reasonable.
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
