I think specifying the reviewer's responsibility in the description/message is a good start. It might also help when requesting specific feedback about design details as opposed to checking code style. Andrew
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Amanda Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Brett Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. When a patch author requests more than one reviewer, they should > > make clear in the review request email what they expect the > > responsibility of each reviewer to be. [...] > > 5. If you're on "FYI" person on a review and you didn't actually > > review in detail (or at all), but don't have a problem with the patch, > > note this. You could say something like "rubber stamp" or "ACK" > > instead of "LGTM." This way the real reviewers know not to trust that > > you did their work for them, but the author of the patch knows they > > don't have to wait for further feedback from you. > > These are excellent suggestions. > > > Hopefully we can still keep everybody in the loop but have clear > > ownership and detailed reviews. It might even speed up some patches > > since I can quickly ACK patches I don't care about, and the patch > > author knows they don't have to wait for feedback from me. Or do you > > think this has too much overhead? > > > > Comments? > > I like it. Explicit flow control is almost always better than waiting > for a timeout to expire :-). > > --Amanda > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
