RetroSearch Browse

Thu Sep 30 18:02:19 CEST 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/104354.html

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:48 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de>wrote:

> Not sure how well 'tit for tat' schemes work - we *could* require
> that people don't commit unreviewed changes, and also require that
> you can't commit unless you have reviewed somebody else's changes.
>

I wonder if a "reputation" scheme would work better.  Track and publicize
patch submissions, reviews, and the review/patch ratio, but do not enforce
any particular ratios.  Perhaps provide a roundup query showing patches
awaiting review sorted by the patch submitter's review/patch ratio? (in
descending order)

Obviously there would be many non-trivial details to work out.  I'm just
brainstorming.

-- 
Daniel Stutzbach, Ph.D.
President, Stutzbach Enterprises, LLC <http://stutzbachenterprises.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20100930/c96469a1/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-September/104354.html below:

[Python-Dev] We should be using a tool for code reviews