Hi all, As a general rule, we credit reviewers in the commit message. This is good. However, it is not clear to me if there are guidelines on who should be included as a reviewer (please correct me if I am wrong). I can think of a few options:
1. Anyone that commented on the patch (in the pull request or Review Board) 2. The ones that have reviewed and approved the patch (+1, LGTM, Ship it, etc.) 3. A more sophisticated system that differentiates between someone who reviews and approves a patch versus someone who simply comments on aspects of the patch [1] On the surface, `1` seems appealing because it 's simple and credits people who do partial reviews. The issue, however, is that people (including myself) may not want to be tagged as a reviewer if they left a comment or two, but didn't review the change properly. Option `2` is still simple and it avoids this issue. As such, I lean towards option `2`, although `3` would work for me too (the additional complexity is the main downside). Thoughts? Best, Ismael [1] I don't think we should go this far, but the Linux Kernel is an extreme example of this with `Signed-off-by`, `Acked-by`, `Cc`, `Reviewed-by`, `Tested-by`, `Suggested-by`, `Reported-by`, `Fixes`, etc. More details in their documentation: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
