Re: Incentives for review

[Joshua Branson]

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.
>
> 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.

If you're looking for an occassional guix contributor friend to
mentor...I'll gladly volunteer!  :)

-- 
Joshua Branson (jab in #guix)
Sent from Emacs and Gnus
  https://gnucode.me
  https://video.hardlimit.com/accounts/joshua_branson/video-channels
  https://propernaming.org
  "You can have whatever you want, as long as you help
enough other people get what they want." - Zig Ziglar