Hi, On Mon, 19 Sep 2022, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 9/13/2022 7:11 PM, Victoria Dye wrote: > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> "Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> From: Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Add a reviewing guidelines document including advice and common terminology > >>> used in Git mailing list reviews. The document is included in the > >>> 'TECH_DOCS' list in order to include it in Git's published documentation. > >>> > >>> Helped-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> > >>> Helped-by: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >> > >> I've commented on the text but haven't seen anybody else reviewing. > >> No interest? Everybody silently happy? > > > > My guess is that there aren't as many eyes on this as there might typically > > be because of Git Merge. > > Yes, Git Merge took all of my attention in the past week, so I couldn't > chime in at all here. > > My "Helped-by" includes some small suggestions from me, but mostly I > fully support having this kind of document. This one is an excellent > base to start from for future augmentation as we discover ideas that > could avoid sticky situations. > > I particularly like how this document assumes good intent from all > parties, but recommends over-communicating to be sure that intent is > clear to everyone. What Stolee said. I really like how this document serves as a great inspiration to align actions with intentions (answering the question "How do I craft my review in a way that the reader _sees_ my good intention, too?"; Sometimes there is a disconnect between intent and impact). Thank you for putting this together, Victoria! Dscho
