Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I'd like to see prizes each release for best contribution and best reviewer - I've thought for years something like this would be worth trying. Committers and core members should not be eligible - this is about encouraging new people. Encouraging new people is good, but recognizing sustained, long-term contributions is good, too. I think we should do more of that, too. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I'd like to see prizes each release for best contribution and best reviewer - I've thought for years something like this would be worth trying. Committers and core members should not be eligible - this is about encouraging new people. Encouraging new people is good, but recognizing sustained, long-term contributions is good, too. I think we should do more of that, too. Conforming with David Fetter's pointer to the notion that sometimes attempts to reward can backfire, I'm not sure that it will be super-helpful to create special rewards. On the other hand, to recognize reviewer contributions in places relevant to where they take place seems pretty apropos, which could include: a) Obviously we already capture this in the CommitFest web site (but it's worth mentioning when trying to do a census) b) It would be a pretty good thing to mention reviewers within commit notes; that provides some direct trace-back as to who it was that either validated that the change was good, or that let a bad one slip through. c) The release notes indicate authors of changes; to have a list of reviewers would be a fine thing. If it requires inordinate effort to get the reviewers directly attached to each and every change, perhaps it isn't worthwhile to go to extreme efforts to that end. It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change. The statement of such a list is a public acknowledgement of those that help assure that the quality of PostgreSQL code remains excellent. (And that may represent a good way to sell this kudo.) This allows organizations that are sponsoring PostgreSQL development to have an extra metric by which *they* can recognize that their staff that do such work are being recognized as contributors. It seems to me that this is way more useful than a free t-shirt or the like.
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: b) It would be a pretty good thing to mention reviewers within commit notes; that provides some direct trace-back as to who it was that either validated that the change was good, or that let a bad one slip through. c) The release notes indicate authors of changes; to have a list of reviewers would be a fine thing. If it requires inordinate effort to get the reviewers directly attached to each and every change, perhaps it isn't worthwhile to go to extreme efforts to that end. It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change. Adding the names to each release note item is not a problem; the problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from the release notes. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/27/2013 12:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change. Adding the names to each release note item is not a problem; the problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from the release notes. Yeah. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the audience for the release notes doesn't actually give a darn who implemented what. Maybe we should have a Kudos / Bragging rights wiki page, with a table something like this: Release Feature Name Principal Author(s) Contributing Author(s) Code Reviewer(s) Tester(s) Constructing it going backwards would be an interesting task :-) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: It could be pretty satisfactory to have a simple listing, in the release notes, of the set of reviewers. That's a lot less bookkeeping than tracking this for each and every change. Adding the names to each release note item is not a problem; the problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from the release notes. Yeah. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the audience for the release notes doesn't actually give a darn who implemented what. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 6/25/13 2:44 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On the other hand, I will point out that we currently have a shortage of reviewers, and we do NOT have a shortage of patch submitters. That's because reviewing is harder than initial development. The only people who think otherwise are developers who don't do enough review. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant USg...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/27/2013 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Adding the names to each release note item is not a problem; the problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from the release notes. That's not a realistic objection. We'd be talking about one or two more names per patch, with a handful of exceptions. If you're going to make an objection, object to the amount of extra work it would be, which is signigficant with the current state of our technology. Realistically, it'll take the help of additional people. On 06/27/2013 09:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the audience for the release notes doesn't actually give a darn who implemented what. There is some argument to be made about moving the whole list of names to some other resource, like a web page. In fact, if the mythical land where we have a new CF application, that other resource could even be generated by the CF app with some hand-tweaking (this would also require some tweaks to community profiles etc.). What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move *all* of them. Also, it needs to be on something more trustworthy than the wiki, like maybe putting it at postgresql.org/developers/9.3/ On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: Encouraging new people is good, but recognizing sustained, long-term contributions is good, too. I think we should do more of that, too. I wasn't thinking about doing it every year -- just for 9.3, in order to encourage more reviewers, and encourage reviewers to do more reviews. But that would only work if we're also giving reviewers credit; as several people have said, they care more about credit than they do about prizes. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: On 06/27/2013 08:56 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Adding the names to each release note item is not a problem; the problem is the volume of names that overwhelms the release note text. If we went that direction, I predict we would just remove _all_ names from the release notes. That's not a realistic objection. We'd be talking about one or two more names per patch, with a handful of exceptions. It is realistic because I did this for 9.2 beta and people didn't like it; how much more realistic do you want? If you're going to make an objection, object to the amount of extra work it would be, which is significant with the current state of our technology. Realistically, it'll take the help of additional people. No extra work required, it is all copy/paste for me. On 06/27/2013 09:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the audience for the release notes doesn't actually give a darn who implemented what. There is some argument to be made about moving the whole list of names to some other resource, like a web page. In fact, if the mythical land where we have a new CF application, that other resource could even be generated by the CF app with some hand-tweaking (this would also require some tweaks to community profiles etc.). Yes, I am fine with moving all names. However, I predict you will do more to demotivate patch submitters than you will to motivate patch reviewers. That is fine with me, as motivating developers/reviewers is not our top priority. What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move *all* of them. Also, it needs to be on something more trustworthy than the wiki, like maybe putting it at postgresql.org/developers/9.3/ I think you will have trouble keeping those two lists synchronized. I think you will need to create a release note document that includes all names, then copy that to a website and remove the names just before the release is packaged. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move *all* of them. Also, it needs to be on something more trustworthy than the wiki, like maybe putting it at postgresql.org/developers/9.3/ I think you will have trouble keeping those two lists synchronized. I think you will need to create a release note document that includes all names, then copy that to a website and remove the names just before the release is packaged. Unless Bruce is doing more work than I think he is, the attribution data going into the release notes is just coming from whatever the committer said in the commit log message. I believe that we've generally been careful to credit the patch author, but I'm less confident that everyone who merited a review credit always gets mentioned --- that would require going through the entire review thread at commit time, and I for one can't say that I do that. If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited, it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release notes out of that loop. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited, it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release notes out of that loop. I'd pull the reviewers out of the CF app. Even in its current implementation, that's the easiest route. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/27/2013 02:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited, it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release notes out of that loop. I'd pull the reviewers out of the CF app. Even in its current implementation, that's the easiest route. I have not honestly found these to be terribly accurate. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:17:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:10:23AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: What I would be opposed to is continuing to list the original authors in the release notes and putting reviewers, testers, co-authors, etc. on a separate web page. If we're gonna move people, let's move *all* of them. Also, it needs to be on something more trustworthy than the wiki, like maybe putting it at postgresql.org/developers/9.3/ I think you will have trouble keeping those two lists synchronized. I think you will need to create a release note document that includes all names, then copy that to a website and remove the names just before the release is packaged. Unless Bruce is doing more work than I think he is, the attribution data going into the release notes is just coming from whatever the committer said in the commit log message. I believe that we've generally been Yes, that's all I do. Bruce is doing more work than I think he is gave me a chuckle. ;-) careful to credit the patch author, but I'm less confident that everyone who merited a review credit always gets mentioned --- that would require going through the entire review thread at commit time, and I for one can't say that I do that. If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited, it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release notes out of that loop. I assume you are suggesting we _not_ use the commit log and release notes for reviewer credit. Good point; we might be able to pull that from the commit-fest app, though you then need to match that with the release note text. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Andrew Dunstan escribió: On 06/27/2013 02:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: If we're going to try harder to ensure that reviewers are credited, it'd probably be better to take both the commit log and the release notes out of that loop. I'd pull the reviewers out of the CF app. Even in its current implementation, that's the easiest route. I have not honestly found these to be terribly accurate. Yeah, they're not. I do take care to review past threads when crediting reviewers in commit messages, and I don't even bother to look at the CF app. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Josh Berkus wrote: I wasn't thinking about doing it every year -- just for 9.3, in order to encourage more reviewers, and encourage reviewers to do more reviews. - -1. It's not cool to set it up and then stop it the next go round. You want more reviewers? Start by streamlining the process as much as possible. I pretended I was new to the project and tried to figure out how to review something. The homepage has no mention of reviewers, not even if you drill down on some subpages. A Google search does lead one to: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch It has some good you can do it wordage. However, there is no clear path on how to actually start reviewing. There is this paragraph with two links in it: The current commitfest is here[1] and has plenty of room for you to help. You can sign up to become a Round Robin Reviewer here[2]. Once you have, write a mail to the list introducing yourself. [1] Leads to the commitfest, with a nice summary, but no way for new people to know what to do. [2] This link is even worse (http://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-rrreviewers/) It's an archive list for pgsql-rrreviewers, with no way to subscribe and certainly no indication on it or the previous page that sign up means (one might guess) join the mailing list. Anyway, just food for thought as far as attracting new people. It should be much easier and more intuitive. As far as rewarding current reviewers, put the names in the release notes, after each item. Full stop. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201306271636 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREDAAYFAlHMoqIACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgCPACgovKYtxJV59Xro0MlxPDEHIy6 pmAAoOLOAlpO/dPlJbyHypdcY4ZxLCit =RwMh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Dean Rasheed 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 b) Unless they contribute enough to the patch to be considered a 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 a) Sometimes even it compiles can be worthwhile, if there is doubt over platform compatibility. All contributions should be acknowledged and encouraged. 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 b) Getting your name in the fine manual is reward enough ;-) +1, except that I like Josh's idea about a free ticket to pgCon. Yours, Laurenz Albe -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
For me, B,B and another B works. Regards, Atri -- Regards, Atri l'apprenant -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd 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. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result in the removal of all names from features. A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd 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. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result in the removal of all names from features. A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. That's why I voted for b :-) cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/25/2013 08:26 PM, Andres Freund wrote: It's not about the reviewers being less. It's a comparison of effort. The effort for a casual review simply isn't comparable with the effort spent on developing a nontrivial patch. Remember: Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. ... (Brian Kernighan) IMO, the kind of reviews we need are of almost debug level difficulty. (To the point where the reviewer becomes a co-author or even takes over and submits a completely revamped patch instead.) I agree that the casual review is several levels below that, so your point holds. I doubt we need more reviews of that kind, though. Thus, I'm in the AAB camp. The remaining question being: What's the criterion for becoming a co-author (and thus getting mentioned in the release notes)? If at all, we should honor quality work with a prize. Maybe a price for the best reviewer per CF? Maybe even based on votes from the general public on who's been the best, so reviews gain attention that way... Click here to vote for my review. ... Maybe a crazy idea. Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Well, one of the other prizes which occurred to me today would be a pgCon lottery. That is, each review posted by a non-committer would go in a hat, and in February we would draw one who would get a free registration and airfare to pgCon. +1, I like that idea! Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: On 06/26/2013 09:14 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd 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. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result in the removal of all names from features. A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. That's why I voted for b :-) Yeah, with that in mind, I'd also switch to b. I wouldn't complain, but if it's been tried and failed... what can I say? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd 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. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email... If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are doneI mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough In my opinion, adding reviewer names to each feature item might result in the removal of all names from features. Let's fix the way that release notes are done A poll is nice for gauging interest, but many people who vote don't understand the ramifications of what they are voting on. I agree, but cost-benefit is what we should see here not just cost -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd 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. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email... If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are doneI mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release note format. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:13:32 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:12:00PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:14:07 -0400 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:40:17AM +1000, Brendan Jurd 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. As a reminder, I tried a variant of C for 9.2 beta release notes, and got lots of complaints, particularly because the line describing the feature now had many more names on it. I am just someone that is thinking that maybe can review things...I am not voting OK but I have a comment about your last email... If people thinks (and with people I am not talking about myself but regular committers and reviewers) think that option c is good, I think that we should change the tool (or the way) that release notes are doneI mean (and excuse my poor English) if people thing that it is the way to go, we should make tools good enough for what people want not change people thoughts cause tools are not good enough Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release note format. Well... Checking release notes for 9.2.4 you have Fix insecure parsing of server command-line switches (Mitsumasa Kondo, Kyotaro Horiguchi) What about (it people think that it is good) a second () with reviewed by someone -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:22:06PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote: On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:13:32 -0400 Production of the release notes was not the problem; it was the text in the release notes. I don't see how we could modify the release note format. Well... Checking release notes for 9.2.4 you have Fix insecure parsing of server command-line switches (Mitsumasa Kondo, Kyotaro Horiguchi) What about (it people think that it is good) a second () with reviewed by someone That's what we had, and people didn't like it. If we overload that list of names, we might find we want to remove all the names. -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Bruce Momjian escribió: On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:22:06PM -0300, Rodrigo Gonzalez wrote: Checking release notes for 9.2.4 you have Fix insecure parsing of server command-line switches (Mitsumasa Kondo, Kyotaro Horiguchi) What about (it people think that it is good) a second () with reviewed by someone That's what we had, and people didn't like it. If we overload that list of names, we might find we want to remove all the names. Yeah, it becomes too long. (For security patches, in particular, it's probably not wise to list reviewers; there might well be reviewers whose input you never see because they happened in the closed security list). See the entry for foreign key locks: Prevent non-key-field row updates from locking foreign key rows (Álvaro Herrera, Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Alexander Shulgin, Marti Raudsepp) I am the author of most of the code, yet I chose to add Noah and Andres because they contributed a huge amount of time to reviewing the patch, and Alex and Marti because they submitted some code. They are all listed as coauthors, which seems a reasonable compromise to me. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/26/2013 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: See the entry for foreign key locks: Prevent non-key-field row updates from locking foreign key rows (Álvaro Herrera, Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Alexander Shulgin, Marti Raudsepp) I am the author of most of the code, yet I chose to add Noah and Andres because they contributed a huge amount of time to reviewing the patch, and Alex and Marti because they submitted some code. They are all listed as coauthors, which seems a reasonable compromise to me. What about the idea that reviewers who do code revision work, like in your FK patch, get listed after the original patch author with the patch, and reviewers do more lightweight reviews get listed at the bottom of the release notes? Seems fair to me. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? Without getting into how we do this, I thought it might be helpful to share the reasons why I believe recognizing and expressing gratitude to reviewers is a helpful, useful and gratifying exercise for the Postgres community. I support crediting reviewers in a more formal way than we currently do for a few different reasons. First, I believe it's worth finding a way to say Hey, you just did something great for Postgres, publicly, to a bunch of people who could have spent their valuable time and energy in some other way. Second, reviewers get better at their work by reviewing multiple times - so I'd like to encourage people to review more than once. Third, reviewers don't always need to be expert developers, or experts at Postgres to get started, but many people who do open source work have no idea this is true. Public recognition helps make it clear that we have people who give useful reviews and are relative novices. We also have several different kinds of reviews: * does it compile * style/typo/easily seen bug passes * in-depth discussion of design choices, use case, interface * complex testing cases * performance testing * pre-commit checks for more subtle bugs or committer preferences. All of those, except probably the very last, can be done by people who are familiar with Postgres or its configuration, but aren't necessarily Postgres or C experts. Fourth, we have very few accepted ways to recognize contributions to Postgres. Naming in Release Notes is one way this community has consistently supported as a *public* way to say hey, you just did something great for Postgres. The complete list of ways I'm aware of are: 1. Recognizing major, minor and emeritus contributors 2. Making someone a committer 3. Being part of the -core group 4. Naming authors by name in commit messages (but without consistent metadata, making it difficult to count well) 5. Naming authors in release notes That's pretty much it. That's great for the people who have already secured positions through seniority, or because they're amazing C hackers. I don't know if I need to lay out for everyone the value of public recognition - if you want me to I can enumerate them. But the benefits of public recognition are huge -- both in a social and a financial sense. Currently, the only way I know of to be recognized for work on Postgres that is *not* seniority or code-related is #1. If you're a reviewer, there's almost no chance you'll be recognized in that way without some additional, very significant contribution to our community. (Please let me know if I'm mistaken about this -- I only know what I know!) Adding names to Release Notes (or some variant of Release Notes) seems like a minor concession for work done that we as a community value and want to encourage. We are so few in terms of patch contributors - somewhere between 300-400 people contribute code to PostgreSQL each year based on the names I try to pull out of commits. I haven't counted how many reviewers we have who do not also contribute code. Giving people appreciation for the review work they're doing for this community, for free, is a good thing for everyone. Naming more names helps describe the true scope of our community. Spreading gratitude is good for those who thank and those who receive thanks (like, proven scientifically!). And we increase the number of people who benefit directly from the work that they do here, by giving them something they can point their boss, their company and their colleagues to. So, when we're debating *how* recognition might be done, please don't lose sight of *why* this is important in the first place. -selena -- http://chesnok.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes: Well, one of the other prizes which occurred to me today would be a pgCon lottery. That is, each review posted by a non-committer would go in a hat, and in February we would draw one who would get a free registration and airfare to pgCon. +1, I like that idea! +1 on that also, looks like an excellent idea. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 27/06/13 07:12, Josh Berkus wrote: On 06/26/2013 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: See the entry for foreign key locks: Prevent non-key-field row updates from locking foreign key rows (Álvaro Herrera, Noah Misch, Andres Freund, Alexander Shulgin, Marti Raudsepp) I am the author of most of the code, yet I chose to add Noah and Andres because they contributed a huge amount of time to reviewing the patch, and Alex and Marti because they submitted some code. They are all listed as coauthors, which seems a reasonable compromise to me. What about the idea that reviewers who do code revision work, like in your FK patch, get listed after the original patch author with the patch, and reviewers do more lightweight reviews get listed at the bottom of the release notes? Seems fair to me. I note reviewers are usually (?) mentioned in the commits to the git repo - so maybe it is enough to list them at the bottom of the release notes only? Regards Mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
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
[HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
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 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 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! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 25.06.2013 20:17, 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 a) Sometimes a reviewer contributes greatly to the patch, revising it and rewriting parts of it. At that point, it's not just a review anymore, and he/she should be mentioned in the release notes as a 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 This is one reason why I answered a) above. I don't want to set a criteria. 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 a). I don't think we should make any promises, though. Just arbitrarily send a t-shirt when you feel that someone has done a good job reviewing other people's patches. And I'm not sure it's really worth the trouble, to arrange the logistics etc. - Heikki -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Tue, June 25, 2013 19:17, Josh Berkus wrote: How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? b) in a single block titled Reviewers for this version at the bottom. Should there be a criteria for a creditable review? b) yes, they have to do more than it compiles Should reviewers for 9.4 get a prize, such as a t-shirt, as a promotion to increase the number of non-submitter reviewers? b) no Erik Rijkers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 2013-06-25 10:17:07 -0700, Josh Berkus 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 b). If the review was substantial enough the reviewer gets bumped to a secondary author, just as it already happens. 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). Surely performance reviews should also count, they can be at least as time consuming as a code review, so c) doesn't seem to make sense. 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 Not sure. Seems like it might be a way to spend a lot of effort without achieving all that much. But I can also imagine that it feels nice and encourages a casual reviewer/contributor. So it's either b) or c). Although I'd perhaps exclude regular contributors to keep the list reasonable? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/25/2013 10:46 AM, Andres Freund wrote: Not sure. Seems like it might be a way to spend a lot of effort without achieving all that much. But I can also imagine that it feels nice and encourages a casual reviewer/contributor. So it's either b) or c). Although I'd perhaps exclude regular contributors to keep the list reasonable? Well, one of the other prizes which occurred to me today would be a pgCon lottery. That is, each review posted by a non-committer would go in a hat, and in February we would draw one who would get a free registration and airfare to pgCon. Seems apropos and without the horrible logistics issues of mailing tshirts to 15 countries. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
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
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 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. It's not about the reviewers being less. It's a comparison of effort. The effort for a casual review simply isn't comparable with the effort spent on developing a nontrivial patch. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/25/2013 01:17 PM, 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 b) seems about right. 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 c). Compilation, functionality and performance tests are useful, but what we desperately need are in depth code reviews of large patches. If we debase the currency by rewarding things less than that then any incentive effect of kudos in encouraging more reviews is lost. 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'd like to see prizes each release for best contribution and best reviewer - I've thought for years something like this would be worth trying. Committers and core members should not be eligible - this is about encouraging new people. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: How should reviewers get credited in the release notes? c) on the patch they reviewed, for each patch This not only makes sense, it also lets people reading release notes know there's been a review, and how thorough it was. I know, all changes in PG get reviewed, but having it explicit on release notes I imagine would be useful. Especially if I know the reviewers. The co-author part also makes a lot of sense. When a reviewer introduces changes directly, and they get committed, I think it should be automatically considered co-authoring the patch. Should there be a criteria for a creditable review? a) no, all reviews are worthwhile It's not that they're all worthwhile, but arbitrary decisions lend themselves to arbitrary criticism. Whatever criteria should be straightforward, unambiguous and unbiased, and it's hard getting all those three in any other criteria than: all are worthwhile. b) yes, they have to do more than it compiles This one's better than nothing, if you must have a minimum criteria. But then people will just point out some trivial stuff and you'd be tempted to say that trivialities don't count... and you get a snowball going. IMHO, it's all or nothing. Should reviewers for 9.4 get a prize, such as a t-shirt, as a promotion to increase the number of non-submitter reviewers? b) no Yeah, while a fun idea, I don't think the logistics of it make it worth the effort. Too much effort for too little benefit. And I think recognition is a far better incentive than T-shirts anyway. I know I'd be encouraged to review patches for the recognition alone, a lot more than for a T-shirt I might not get. Contributing is nice, but feeling appreciated while doing so is better. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/25/2013 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 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. It's not about the reviewers being less. It's a comparison of effort. The effort for a casual review simply isn't comparable with the effort spent on developing a nontrivial patch. On the other hand, I will point out that we currently have a shortage of reviewers, and we do NOT have a shortage of patch submitters. Seems like we should apply incentives where we need help, no? Mind you, my votes are (B), (A), and (A). -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 06/25/2013 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-06-25 11:04:38 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: 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. It's not about the reviewers being less. It's a comparison of effort. The effort for a casual review simply isn't comparable with the effort spent on developing a nontrivial patch. I think this is a backwards way to look at it. The effort may not be comparable but the drudgery certainly is. Reviewing patches sucks. Writing patches (for the most part) is fun. Should the patch submitter get first billing? Yes. Should the reviewer that makes sure to a reasonable level that the patch is sane also get billing? Absolutely. Should the reviewer get billing that is about the patch they reviewed. Yes. As I mentioned before in the release notes something like: Author: Tom Lane Reviewer(s): Greg Stark, Andrew Dunstan I think that is perfectly reasonable. 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
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On 25 June 2013 18:17, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com 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 b) Unless they contribute enough to the patch to be considered a 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 a) Sometimes even it compiles can be worthwhile, if there is doubt over platform compatibility. All contributions should be acknowledged and encouraged. 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 b) Getting your name in the fine manual is reward enough ;-) Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:17:07AM -0700, 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) This keeps history better. 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 a). If it turns out that people are gaming this, or appear to be gaming this, we can revisit the policy. 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 b). You want to be *extremely* careful when paying volunteers. The chances of damaging their intrinsic motivations are high, especially when it's not stuff like covering their expenses. http://www.iew.uzh.ch/wp/iewwp007.pdf Cheers, David. -- David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
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. 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. 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 Provisionally (b), if we first try giving proper credit, and that still doesn't drum up enough reviewing, then look to further incentive schemes. No need to jump the gun. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll
Brendan Jurd wrote On 26 June 2013 03:17, Josh Berkus lt; josh@ gt; 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 I think some consideration toward a commit and review summary (outside the release notes; and graphical/interactive in nature ideally) for each major release is something worth considering. With regards to the release notes I'd lean toward (b); significant contributions getting bumped to co-author on specific patches covers (c) fairly well. I am unsure whether release note mentions are significant enough motivation...see other thoughts below. 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 Ideally (a) though (b) conceptually makes sense but it is too generic. 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 One low-cost prize that I've pondered is, on an ongoing basis, the ability to post a link and/or message to the PostgreSQL front page within a significantly less stringent barrier to acceptance than is required for current content. Basically except for topics or presentations deemed of poor taste or detrimental to the project anything should be allowed. Some kind of this message was allowed because so-and-so has recently made the following significant contributions to the project. There are probably quite a few logistics to deal with down this path but a sponsor platform for shameless self-promotion for people making the project successful - something visible on an ongoing basis and not just once a year in a release note - is likely a very valuable to the contributor while fairly inexpensive to the project (i.e., some risk of reputation and some cost to setup the infrastructure). David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Kudos-for-Reviewers-straw-poll-tp5760952p5761031.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
