On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > 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 > > A weak preference for (c), with (b) running a close second. As others > have suggested, a review that leads to significant commitable changes > to the patch should bump the credit to co-authorship. > I like the "single block at the bottom" myself, with the same provision to move a reviewer up to co-author. > > > 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), the review should at least look at usabililty, doc, and > regression test criteria even if there is no in-depth code analysis. > +1 to this. > > > 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 > I was going to go with b until I saw the suggestion for a PgCon ticket. I really like that idea. gabrielle
