<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:48 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martin@v.loewis.de">martin@v.loewis.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Not sure how well 'tit for tat' schemes work - we *could* require</div>
that people don't commit unreviewed changes, and also require that<br>
you can't commit unless you have reviewed somebody else's changes.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Obviously there would be many non-trivial details to work out. I'm just brainstorming.</div></div><br>-- <br>Daniel Stutzbach, Ph.D.<br>
President, <a href="http://stutzbachenterprises.com/" target="_blank">Stutzbach Enterprises, LLC</a><br>