From: Christine Lemmer-Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Incentives for review
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 15:34:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mtn4ajpl.fsf@dustycloud.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k0i8q0uv.fsf@elephly.net>
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> A good middle ground may be to provide incentives for review. How?
>> I’m
>> not sure exactly, but first by making it clear that review is makes
>> the
>> project move forward and is invaluable. You once proposed having
>> ‘Reviewed-By’ tags to acknowledge non-committer reviews, and I think
>> that would be one step in that direction. Perhaps there are other
>> things we could do?
>
> I was thinking in the opposite direction: not incentives to recognize
> reviewers but a closer relationship to the patch submitters,
> i.e. “patch buddies” or mentorship. If I made myself officially
> responsible for reviewing commits by Simon and all commits touching R
> then I’m more likely to actually do the review for these patches.
I think this sounds good. Maybe in conjunction with "guix days", etc?
> Reviews done by people who are not committers could also be
> acknowledged, of course, but applying the patch (sometimes
> manually because of conflicts) is still manual work that can feel like
> a chore if the committer doesn’t feel a connection to the patch or the
> person who submitted it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-19 19:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-15 18:54 Tricking peer review Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-15 22:03 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-10-15 22:28 ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-15 22:45 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-10-15 22:59 ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-18 7:40 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-18 19:56 ` Ryan Prior
2021-10-19 8:39 ` zimoun
2021-10-20 23:03 ` Leo Famulari
2021-10-21 8:14 ` zimoun
2021-10-15 23:13 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-18 7:47 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-18 7:34 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 8:36 ` zimoun
2021-10-19 12:56 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 14:22 ` zimoun
2021-10-19 15:41 ` Incentives for review Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-19 16:56 ` zimoun
2021-10-19 19:14 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-19 19:34 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber [this message]
2021-10-19 19:50 ` Joshua Branson
2021-10-21 20:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-20 21:37 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-21 13:38 ` Artem Chernyak
2021-10-22 20:03 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-23 1:43 ` Kyle Meyer
2021-10-23 3:42 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-23 7:37 ` zimoun
2021-10-23 16:18 ` public-inbox/elfeed -> Maildir bridge (was: Incentives for review) Kyle Meyer
2021-10-24 12:18 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-21 16:06 ` Incentives for review Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-21 16:32 ` zimoun
2021-10-22 20:06 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2021-10-21 15:07 ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 16:10 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-21 17:52 ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 18:21 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-21 19:58 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-21 21:42 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2021-10-22 10:48 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 11:21 ` zimoun
2021-10-23 6:09 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 10:56 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 7:40 ` zimoun
2021-10-22 11:09 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 8:37 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 9:15 ` zimoun
2021-10-22 10:40 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 11:32 ` zimoun
2021-10-21 21:18 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-22 10:44 ` Arun Isaac
2021-10-22 11:06 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-10-21 21:22 ` zimoun
2021-10-28 14:57 ` Katherine Cox-Buday
2021-10-21 17:51 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2021-10-24 11:47 ` Efraim Flashner
2021-10-20 8:22 ` Tricking peer review Giovanni Biscuolo
2021-10-20 9:10 ` zimoun
2021-10-20 8:29 ` patches for new packages proper workflow (Re: Tricking peer review) Giovanni Biscuolo
2021-10-20 23:09 ` Tricking peer review Leo Famulari
2021-10-21 7:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-10-25 13:09 ` Christine Lemmer-Webber
2021-10-28 8:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87mtn4ajpl.fsf@dustycloud.org \
--to=cwebber@dustycloud.org \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=rekado@elephly.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).