My two cents: The jira comment is a way for the committer to say "thank you" to people who were involved in the review process. It doesn't have any formal implications - the responsibility for committing good code is on the committer (thats the whole point). It doesn't even have informal implications - no one ever went after a reviewer if a code turned out buggy.
I suggest: Leave it up to the committer best judgement and not introduce process where there's really no need for one. Gwen On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > 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
