On 06/25/2013 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Hackers, I'd like to take a straw poll here on how we should acknowledge reviewers. Please answer the below with your thoughts, either on-list or via private email. How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? 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.
Should there be a criteria for a "creditable" review? a) no, all reviews are worthwhile b) yes, they have to do more than "it compiles" c) yes, only code reviews should count
B. I think it compiles, and I tested it via X should be the minimum. Here is a case. I was considering taking a review of the new Gin Cache patch. I can't really do a "code" review but I can certainly run benchmarking tests before/after and apply the patch etc.
Should reviewers for 9.4 get a "prize", such as a t-shirt, as a promotion to increase the number of non-submitter reviewers? a) yes b) no c) yes, but submitters and committers should get it too Thanks for your feedback!
B. We already give them a multi-million dollar piece of software for free. 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
