On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:31:43PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Reviewers have limited time allocated for each individual topic. To > > an original patch with say 3 problems, the review may only point out > > issues in 2 and suggest a concrete improvement for only 1 and that > > is sufficient to suggest a reroll. That is not being unhelpful by > > deliberately withholding 1 and half reviews in the initial round. > > I'm not talking about the time it took to come up with the criticism > below, I'm talking about the comment regarding the commit message. If > the commit message did indeed provide *zero* explanation, that's > certainly something that should be immediately visible, no? It could > have been mentioned six months ago. I do not recall this series at all from six months ago. I reviewed a series (with no version markers, nor any mention of the previous round) posted on April 1st, and assumed it was a new series. I raised the same issues there that I did in v3, though in less detail (because I had not yet looked into it as thoroughly). I searched the archive after reading this mail and found the original series. Yes, it existed. I didn't review it. I guess I had something more important to do that day. But is all of this even important? If there are technical issues with this series, does it matter when we find out about them? They still deserve to be fixed, no? Yes, it is nice if things get reviewed promptly, but the limited bandwidth and attention of reviewers is a fact of life. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html