From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VSQ9y-00027S-Hy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:36:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.54; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f54.google.com; Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.214.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VSQ9x-0005dO-L1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:36:34 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id mz12so1995193bkb.27 for ; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.69.12 with SMTP id x12mr17162083bki.12.1380972987081; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Oct 2013 04:36:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 13:36:26 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: q076DjS7QB-pED1FTX3K11En3e0 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132ec9057280b04e7fcd449 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1VSQ9x-0005dO-L1 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 11:36:34 -0000 --001a1132ec9057280b04e7fcd449 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Gavin Andresen 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. --001a1132ec9057280b04e7fcd449 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Gavin Andresen <g= avinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
=
I'll try harder to be a fascist (it doesn= 9;t come naturally to me). HUGE thanks for taking the time to review the fe= e changes in detail.

Thanks, although I wasn't thinki= ng specifically of you. The fee pull is pretty well laid out. It just remin= ded me that it seems to be a common issue I've had over the past year o= r so, across projects and people.
=C2=A0
I'm all for using better to= ols, 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 i= t would be counter-productive: =C2=A0we'd just make the pool of reviewe= rs even smaller than it already is.

Yes, I don't know if github supp= orts any kind of SSO. I will investigate. As for learning another tool, wel= l, when the current tool kind of sucks I don't see any way around that = one :)
=C2=A0
Are there good examples of othe= r open source software projects successfully incentivizing review that we c= an copy?

=
For example, I'm wondering if maybe for the 0.9 release and onward= s the "Thank you" section should thank only people who have signi= ficantly helped test or review other people's code.

Perhaps just have a sepa= rate section for people who helped review above the current section? It see= ms a bit mean not to credit occasional contributors who fixed bugs or maint= ained something important but didn't review complicated changes to the = core.=C2=A0
--001a1132ec9057280b04e7fcd449--