Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
Date: 2013-06-24 17:53:37
Message-ID: 51C887A1.7010908@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 06/24/2013 10:48 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:

>>> Reviewer recognition should be on the same level as the submitter.
>>
>> The problem with that is that that HUGELY depends on the patch and the
>> review. There are patches where reviewers do a good percentage of the
>> work and others where they mostly tell that "compiles & runs".
>
>
> Well, you can't so arbitrarily pick who you're recognizing as
> contributor and who you aren't. So why not mention them all? They did
> work for it, some more than others, but they all worked. And since
> whoever submitted a patch (and got it committed) must have reviewed
> something as well, they'd be recognized for both reviewing and
> submitting.
>

Exactly. Just make it a simple policy:

Submitters and Reviewers are listed in that order:

Submitter, reviewer, reviewer

That way submitter gets first bill, satisfying the ego (as well as
professional consideration) but reviewers are also fully recognized.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drkae

--
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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-06-24 17:56:25 Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-06-24 17:50:42 Re: [9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List