On Nov 28, 2019, at 05:12, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > On 28.11.2019 01:54, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, Lars Kurth wrote: >>> From: Lars Kurth <lars.ku...@citrix.com> >>> >>> This document highlights what reviewers such as maintainers and committers >>> look >>> for when reviewing code. It sets expectations for code authors and provides >>> a framework for code reviewers. >> >> I think the document is missing a couple of things: >> >> - a simple one line statement that possibly the most important thing in >> a code review is to indentify any bugs in the code >> >> - an explanation that requests for major changes to the series should be >> made early on (i.e. let's not change the architecture of a feature at >> v9 if possible) I also made this comment in reply to patch #5. I'll >> let you decide where is the best place for it. > > This needs balancing. People crucial to the evaluation of a new > feature and its implementation simply may not have the time to > reply prior to v9. We've had situations where people posted new > revisions every other day, sometimes even more than one per day. > > As indicated in several other contexts before - imo people not > helping to shoulder the review load should also not have the > expectation that their (large) contributions will be looked at > in due course.
To make this actionable, we could have: - reviewer demand index: automated index of open patches still in need of review, sorted by decreasing age - review flow control: each new patch submission cites one recent review by the patch submitter, for a patch of comparable size - reviewer supply growth: a bootstrapping guide for new reviewers and submitters, with patterns, anti-patterns, and examples to be emulated Rich _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
