📅 Original date posted:2013-10-05
📝 Original message:https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Read the section under "14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:
and Suggested-by:". That might be helpful in our process too?
Warren
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> October Webinars: Code for Performance
> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most
> from
> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131004/3b8b08d1/attachment.html>;
Warren Togami Jr. [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s5…zxem8
2023-06-07 15:07:21
in reply to nevent1q…a2c7
Author Public Key
npub1s5p2xnl52ksr3a4qfa8re5znmja46ugm3x3ayy0x2c2mqrsw6ewsmzxem8Published at
2023-06-07 15:07:21Event JSON
{
"id": "ecc867d97898aab545ae4bfd17691922f4284f6aad17c949e29f5541e2a3bf96",
"pubkey": "8502a34ff455a038f6a04f4e3cd053dcbb5d711b89a3d211e65615b00e0ed65d",
"created_at": 1686150441,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c5a68e6f904af4bb9ba26063f532146fb896046fee8fed7dd28cab691644cf81",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"65480e67011957eb8b921d9cfc5f05548f48132f7dae33ac222a805228a956ff",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-10-05\n📝 Original message:https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\nRead the section under \"14) Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, Reviewed-by:\nand Suggested-by:\". That might be helpful in our process too?\n\nWarren\n\n\nOn Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'd like to make a small request - when submitting large, complex pieces\n\u003e\u003e of work for review, please either submit it as one giant squashed change,\n\u003e\u003e or be an absolute fascist about keeping commits logically clean and\n\u003e\u003e separated.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I'll try harder to be a fascist (it doesn't come naturally to me). HUGE\n\u003e thanks for taking the time to review the fee changes in detail.\n\u003e\n\u003e RE: using Review Board:\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm all for using better tools, if they will actually get used. If a\n\u003e potential reviewer has to sign up to create a Review Board account or learn\n\u003e Yet Another Tool, then I think it would be counter-productive: we'd just\n\u003e make the pool of reviewers even smaller than it already is.\n\u003e\n\u003e Are there good examples of other open source software projects\n\u003e successfully incentivizing review that we can copy?\n\u003e\n\u003e For example, I'm wondering if maybe for the 0.9 release and onwards the\n\u003e \"Thank you\" section should thank only people who have significantly helped\n\u003e test or review other people's code.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e October Webinars: Code for Performance\n\u003e Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.\n\u003e Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most\n\u003e from\n\u003e the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register \u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131004/3b8b08d1/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "782b52cf42c590ecaaaece0e261d5de96b6b4301d22fab916f3cf9019d073220e8043ba317ef6e34cc108d9fd8a29b8501303760cf95b1659b2c008c9ccfb3ac"
}