On 09 Dec 12:02, Pierre-Louis Bonicoli wrote: > On 09/12/2014 11:41, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote: > > 2014-12-09 11:07 GMT+01:00 Cédric Krier <[email protected]>: > >> On 09 Dec 10:45, Pierre-Louis Bonicoli wrote: > >>> Generally, in order to allow faster contributions, core developers > >>> should avoid writing opposite comments in review. Better reviews will > >>> result in better contributions. > >>> For example, in 12491002, comment in patch set 3 about "ValueError" > >>> could have been written in patch set 1, it would have avoided a patch > >>> set. Moreover this will avoid giving impression that contributions are > >>> not welcome. > >> > >> That's a dream. Or I will just stop reviewing. > > > > Or in other words: It's impossible for the reviewer to see all the > > possible problems at the first review, the same way the creator of the > > patch didn't see those in the first place. Otherwise it would not be > > necessary to review at all. Reviewing takes time and most usually > > several uploads and that's why the quality ends up being great. > > I didn't mean "write all comments in the first patch set". I mean: for > trivial/short patch (such as 12491002), don't ask for different/opposite > improvements.
Please be careful when giving such statement. Point me where I was not consistent in this review? This is really the kind of comments that pissing me off. Of course, I'm not a machine and I can make mistakes or change my mind. Also I at least do reviews but if it is to be pointed like that, I will stop reviewing others (just like the majority). Also there is no trivial/short patch, all must be care with the same level. -- Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL Email/Jabber: [email protected] Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
