On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:58:27 -0400 Jason Cooper <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At the risk of upsetting the apple cart, I'd prefer we downplay anything > that walks down the path of gamification (by focusing on credit). > > As best anyone has ever explained it to me, the Acked-by, Reviewed-by, > etc are there to impart information regarding a specific commit. In the > event that a commit is fingered in a bisect, you have a much better list > of names to Cc, instead of just the maintainer from MAINTAINERS and the > author from the top of the offending file. The author has often moved > on, and the maintainer may not have been around for the bugfix. As I understand it, having been in the room when these tags were developed and encouraged, was that credit was a big part of the initial motivation. We need more testers and bug reporters; this was a way to give them credit for the valuable work that they do. I still think that's important, for whatever that's worth. > I know Greg has spoken out against gamification before, and I also > understand the desire to encourage bug reporters. Perhaps I should just > suggest the following: > > """ > The Reported-by tag helps us maintain contact info for people with > intimate knowledge of a commit or a bug fix. Please seek the reporter's > permission before adding the tag to the commit. That said, if we > diligently credit our bug reporters, they will, hopefully, be inspired > to help us again in the future. > """ That addresses my concern, but loses the point of the initial patch: publicly reporting a bug can be seen as implicit permission to credit the reporter. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
