I guess we see the "reviewer" part with different interpretations.
What are the benefits you see of formalizing who gets mentioned as reviewer? On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Gwen, > > Thanks for the feedback. Comments below. > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> The jira comment is a way for the committer to say "thank you" to >> people who were involved in the review process. > > > If we just want to say thank you, then why not just say that then? Using > the word "reviewers" in this context is unusual from my experience (and I > am an obsessive reader of open-source commits :)). > > 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. >> > > Sure, it's not about going after people. We are nice around here. :) Still, > correct attribution is important. Open-source code in GitHub is seen by > many people and in various contexts. > > I suggest: Leave it up to the committer best judgement and not >> introduce process where there's really no need for one. >> > > Perhaps. Personally, I think we should consider what the contributors > position too instead of just leaving it to the committer. > > Best, > Ismael
