On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 03:56:02 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
That is part of the problem, but this is also a fine example of
a broader pattern that I have noticed in D's review process:
Pull requests are routinely reviewed in an upside-down fashion:
1) Formatting
2) Typos
3) Names
4) Tests (and names again)
6) Docs (and names)
8) Design (and more about names)
9) Does this even belong in Phobos?
I don't think people are doing it on purpose - it's just easier
to start with the trivial nit-picks, because you don't need a
deep understanding of the code and the problem domain (or
decision-making authority) to complain about a missing ' ' or
something.
But, that doesn't change the fact that the process still feels
almost perfectly designed to waste contributors' time.
Unless the PR is a complete mess, (9) and (8) should be debated
*first*, before worrying about any of the other stuff. Why
waste people's time fixing trivialities, if it's all going to
just be deleted or rewritten anyway?
I think anything sufficiently large is likely to be reviewed in
that order. In a lot of cases all the work for 1 - 8 is
progressively done while working out 9. Should people not mention
the smaller mistakes / disagreements they find along the way
until they've reached the end and can provide a final judgement?
