On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote Sadly, often the only way to get a real discussion going is to make the immediacy of it relevant. To date I haven't made any material structural changes to TCP, I've only added the hooks that will be needed. As requested by another I will add some commentary on the purpose of each of the individual hooks to the header file.
I'd certainly agree with the observation that it takes immediacy to force review and discussion to take place. However, I think it's also the case that continuous review of a significant WIP is very time-consuming for the reviewers. By structuring the review process a bit (i.e., identifying specific spots in the design, implementation, etc, where seeking review makes sense and there's a fairly fixed work product for someone to look at rather than a rapidly-moving target in which any comments are rapidly invalidated), I find I tend to receive much more productive reviews from others. Certainly, "The attached patch is going into the tree on/about date X" is the most effective technique, other than just committing the change, to prompt review...
Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
