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
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CABsx9T1Q85usG4mhgLJTnK5pMUDwd1Ek3FmG0Z+-3vxg80xX0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP1Sd8cK2YUr4OSvnOxEJrbWpmfdpor-qbap1f98tGqPwg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1Q85usG4mhgLJTnK5pMUDwd1Ek3FmG0Z+-3vxg80xX0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 13:36:26 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: q076DjS7QB-pED1FTX3K11En3e0
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3WLw4OgbUqT6ejD8WpuaeG15yc2m5Y+Hz3RJT4JZwkkw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
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 <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 11:36:34 -0000
--001a1132ec9057280b04e7fcd449
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>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
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Gavin Andresen <span dir=
=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:gavinandresen@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">g=
avinandresen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra">=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"im"><span sty=
le=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">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.</span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"im"><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">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.</span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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 :)</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=
=3D"im"><span style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">Are there good examples of othe=
r open source software projects successfully incentivizing review that we c=
an copy?</span><br>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><br></div>=
<div>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.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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</div>
</div></div></div>
--001a1132ec9057280b04e7fcd449--
|
