From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VSHf2-0004bB-KP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 02:32:04 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.182; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f182.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VSHf1-0001wU-PS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 02:32:04 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ez12so2531055wid.9 for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.101.134 with SMTP id fg6mr9902547wib.9.1380940317605; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.156.163 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 19:31:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:31:57 +1000 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gavinandresen[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: plan99.net] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VSHf1-0001wU-PS Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 02:32:04 -0000 --f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces > of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed change, > or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and > separated. > 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. RE: using Review Board: 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. 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. -- -- Gavin Andresen --f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net= > wrote:
I'd like to make a small request - when submittin= g large, complex pieces of work for review, please either submit it as one = giant squashed change, or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logi= cally clean and separated.

I'll try harder to be a fascist = (it doesn't come naturally to me). HUGE thanks for taking the time to r= eview the fee changes in detail.

RE: using Review = Board:

I'm all for using better tools, if they will actual= ly get used. If a potential reviewer has to sign up to create a Review Boar= d account or learn Yet Another Tool, then I think it would be counter-produ= ctive: =A0we'd just make the pool of reviewers even smaller than it alr= eady is.

Are there good examples of other open source software p= rojects successfully incentivizing review that we can copy?

<= /div>
For example, I'm wondering if maybe for the 0.9 release and o= nwards the "Thank you" section should thank only people who have = significantly helped test or review other people's code.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2--