On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Jan Beulich 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.
Yes, you are right, it needs balancing. This is not meant to encourage contributors to send 9 versions of a series within a week or two :-) We could say that "contributors should make sure to give enough time to all the key stakeholders to review the series". > 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. I think you are right on this point, and maybe we could add something to that effect _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
