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. Jan _______________________________________________ MirageOS-devel mailing list MirageOS-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel
