Ludovic Courtès <l...@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.
--
Ricardo
