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
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 |