Contributing guidelines: Reviewer credit assignment for substantial code review contributions

[florianl]

This is a follow up to #1311 and #1296 (comment), and the request #1311 (comment).

The CONTRIBUTING.md section How to Address Review Feedback establishes a clear preference for using GitHub's built-in suggestion feature. It explicitly discourages authors from manually reimplementing review suggestions in separate commits, citing three reasons:

1. Additional burden on reviewers to verify the reimplementation
2. Increased probability of bugs
3. Loss of reviewer credit (GitHub's suggestion acceptance mechanism auto-attributes the reviewer)

This policy inadvertently incentivizes reviewers to use GitHub suggestions for all feedback. However, not all review feedback is suitable for suggestions—particularly:

• Structural or architectural guidance that requires discussion and iterative refinement
• Complex refactoring that spans multiple files and functions
• Feedback that needs context or explanation beyond what a suggestion can capture
• Relevant changes outside of the scope where GitHub allows to make suggestions

When reviewers provide substantial guidance through comments instead, the current policy offers no mechanism to credit their contribution.

[christos68k]

Maybe we can ask Claude to also give us some suggestions (e.g. automated workflow).

[christos68k]

Typically issues are assigned by people who choose to work on them so I unassigned the previous assignees. It's not a given that we have a good solution for this issue (lack of credit for deeper structural contributions that are not captured by GH suggestions) or that it's important enough for any one of us to spend time on it. Happy to discuss further.