From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 13:36:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3WLw4OgbUqT6ejD8WpuaeG15yc2m5Y+Hz3RJT4JZwkkw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1Q85usG4mhgLJTnK5pMUDwd1Ek3FmG0Z+-3vxg80xX0Q@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1478 bytes --]
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>wrote:
> I'll try harder to be a fascist (it doesn't come naturally to me). HUGE
> thanks for taking the time to review the fee changes in detail.
>
Thanks, although I wasn't thinking specifically of you. The fee pull is
pretty well laid out. It just reminded me that it seems to be a common
issue I've had over the past year or so, across projects and people.
> I'm all for using better tools, if they will actually get used. If a
> potential reviewer has to sign up to create a Review Board account or learn
> Yet Another Tool, then I think it would be counter-productive: we'd just
> make the pool of reviewers even smaller than it already is.
>
Yes, I don't know if github supports any kind of SSO. I will investigate.
As for learning another tool, well, when the current tool kind of sucks I
don't see any way around that one :)
> Are there good examples of other open source software projects
> successfully incentivizing review that we can copy?
>
> For example, I'm wondering if maybe for the 0.9 release and onwards the
> "Thank you" section should thank only people who have significantly helped
> test or review other people's code.
>
Perhaps just have a separate section for people who helped review above the
current section? It seems a bit mean not to credit occasional contributors
who fixed bugs or maintained something important but didn't review
complicated changes to the core.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2478 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-05 11:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-04 10:30 Mike Hearn
2013-10-04 10:42 ` Andy Parkins
2013-10-04 11:32 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-04 12:34 ` Andy Parkins
2013-10-04 11:35 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-04 11:58 ` Arto Bendiken
2013-10-04 12:14 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-04 12:34 ` Andy Parkins
2013-10-04 11:53 ` Peter Todd
2013-10-04 12:14 ` Mike Hearn
2013-10-04 12:22 ` Eugen Leitl
2013-10-05 2:31 ` Gavin Andresen
2013-10-05 4:02 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2013-10-05 11:36 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CANEZrP3WLw4OgbUqT6ejD8WpuaeG15yc2m5Y+Hz3RJT4JZwkkw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mike@plan99$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox