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; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1Sd8cK2YUr4OSvnOxEJrbWpmfdpor-qbap1f98tGqPwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP1Sd8cK2YUr4OSvnOxEJrbWpmfdpor-qbap1f98tGqPwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:31:57 +1000
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1Q85usG4mhgLJTnK5pMUDwd1Ek3FmG0Z+-3vxg80xX0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review
Precedence: list

--f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@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

--f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"lt=
r">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net=
</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I&#39;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.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;ll try harder to be a fascist =
(it doesn&#39;t come naturally to me). HUGE thanks for taking the time to r=
eview the fee changes in detail.</div><div><br></div><div>RE: using Review =
Board:</div>
<div><br></div><div>I&#39;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&#39;d just make the pool of reviewers even smaller than it alr=
eady is.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Are there good examples of other open source software p=
rojects successfully incentivizing review that we can copy?</div><div><br><=
/div><div>For example, I&#39;m wondering if maybe for the 0.9 release and o=
nwards the &quot;Thank you&quot; section should thank only people who have =
significantly helped test or review other people&#39;s code.</div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>

--f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2--