1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
|
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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <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
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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 <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"><<a href=3D"mailto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net=
</a>></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'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'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.</div><div><br></div><div>RE: using Review =
Board:</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</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'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.</div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
--f46d04462e5616453b04e7f539d2--
|
