On 7/25/24 2:51 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:14:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I saw some contributors hesitate to give a positive review on
patches by their coworkers. When written well, a positive review
does not have to be a hollow "looks good" that rubber stamps an
otherwise useless approval on a topic that is not interesting to
anybody.
Oh, yes, this addition is very welcome indeed! It's a painpoint of ours
at GitLab, and folks were indeed quite unsure about how to handle
positive reviews. I was trying to guide them into the direction of
"reverbalizing" and "thinking out aloud" parts of a patch series that
are tricky in order to demonstrate that they have indeed read through
the patches and understand them. Having all of this written down
explicitly should hopefully help them.
I'll add the perspective of my experience here that this is a good
pattern to follow. One thing that also helps is to avoid doing an
"internal review" for experienced contributors.
When Microsoft was first building up new contributors in this space,
we were overcautious and performed an internal review before going
to the mailing list. While this is good for a contributor's first
series, it loses the benefits of doing review in the open.
A positive review is great. A constructive review that improves the
series is even better.
Except for the typo mentioned by Eric I don't have anything else to add.
Thanks!
Same. Thanks for adding this to the official guidelines.
Thanks,
-Stolee
