I expressly would like to see non-commiters given credit for reviews and have made a point of including them in prior commits for signed-off-by to do that.
I'm fine with the idea of us using some other means to indicate this, but I'd like us to make sure there's not some already widely used bit of git metadata we could use before picking our own. It's kind of like when we moved away from amending author (I think that was the phrase?) To co authored by when github started pushing that as a way to show multiple authors on a commit. One thing to keep in mind also is that a big stumbling block to our consistent crediting of reviewers is a lack of tooling. Having to distinguish between binding and non binding reviews for putting together commit metadata will make that more complicated. On Fri, Nov 20, 2020, 18:15 Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to do a write up Josh. > > Looks good to me. > > When Sean started in on the 'Signed-off-by:' I didn't get it (especially > after reading the git definition). Sean then set me straight explaining our > use is a bit of a perversion of the original. I notice his definition is > not in the refguide. Suggest a sentence preamble definition of > 'Signed-off-by:' and that we intentionally are different from the > definition cited by Bharath. > > I like the Bharath idea on 'Reviewed-by' too. We can talk up 'Reviewed-by' > credits as a way to earn standing in the community, of how they are given > weight evaluating whether to make a candidate a committer/PMC'er or not. > > S > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:13 PM Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 11/20/20 1:07 PM, Bharath Vissapragada wrote: > > >> * All individuals mentioned in a sign-off*must* be capable of giving > a > > >> binding vote (i.e. they are an HBase committer) > > >> > > > It appears that the original intent > > > < > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20160507011446/http://gerrit.googlecode.com/svn/documentation/2.0/user-signedoffby.html > > >of > > > this sign-off feature in git mandates that the signing-off party to be > a > > > maintainer. So agree with you in theory. However, most times > > non-committers > > > also give great feedback and help with the code review process (code > > > reviews, testing, perf etc). I think acknowledging their contribution > in > > > some form would be nice and that encourages potential-future-committers > > to > > > actively review PRs IMO. So how about we annotate their names with > > > Reviewed-by tags? A related discussion > > > <https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2009-October/003036.html> > on a > > > different open source project has more tag definitions if we are > > interested > > > in taking that route. > > > > > > (I know you are only talking about the "signed-off by" tag but I > thought > > > this discussion would be relevant when documenting this in the dev > > > guidelines, hence bringing it up). What do you think? > > > > I would be happy with distinguishing Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by as a > > way to better track metrics on contributors who review others' code. > > > > Great idea! > > >
