| Message ID | xmqqsevysdaa.fsf@gitster.g (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ReviewingGuidelines: encourage positive reviews more | expand |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 5:14 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Let's add a few paragraphs to encourage positive reviews, which is a > bit harder to give than a review to point out things to improve. > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> > --- > diff --git c/Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt w/Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt > @@ -72,12 +72,29 @@ guidance, and concrete tips for interacting with patches on the mailing list. > +- Do not hesitate to give positive reviews on a series from your > + work coleague. If your positive review is written well, it will s/coleague/colleague/ > + not make you look as if you two are representing corporate > + interest on a series that is otherwise uninteresting to other > + community members.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:14:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I saw some contributors hesitate to give a positive review on > patches by their coworkers. When written well, a positive review > does not have to be a hollow "looks good" that rubber stamps an > otherwise useless approval on a topic that is not interesting to > anybody. Oh, yes, this addition is very welcome indeed! It's a painpoint of ours at GitLab, and folks were indeed quite unsure about how to handle positive reviews. I was trying to guide them into the direction of "reverbalizing" and "thinking out aloud" parts of a patch series that are tricky in order to demonstrate that they have indeed read through the patches and understand them. Having all of this written down explicitly should hopefully help them. Except for the typo mentioned by Eric I don't have anything else to add. Thanks! Patrick
On 7/25/24 2:51 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:14:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I saw some contributors hesitate to give a positive review on >> patches by their coworkers. When written well, a positive review >> does not have to be a hollow "looks good" that rubber stamps an >> otherwise useless approval on a topic that is not interesting to >> anybody. > > Oh, yes, this addition is very welcome indeed! It's a painpoint of ours > at GitLab, and folks were indeed quite unsure about how to handle > positive reviews. I was trying to guide them into the direction of > "reverbalizing" and "thinking out aloud" parts of a patch series that > are tricky in order to demonstrate that they have indeed read through > the patches and understand them. Having all of this written down > explicitly should hopefully help them. I'll add the perspective of my experience here that this is a good pattern to follow. One thing that also helps is to avoid doing an "internal review" for experienced contributors. When Microsoft was first building up new contributors in this space, we were overcautious and performed an internal review before going to the mailing list. While this is good for a contributor's first series, it loses the benefits of doing review in the open. A positive review is great. A constructive review that improves the series is even better. > Except for the typo mentioned by Eric I don't have anything else to add. > Thanks! Same. Thanks for adding this to the official guidelines. Thanks, -Stolee
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 09:31:46AM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 7/25/24 2:51 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:14:37PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I saw some contributors hesitate to give a positive review on > > > patches by their coworkers. When written well, a positive review > > > does not have to be a hollow "looks good" that rubber stamps an > > > otherwise useless approval on a topic that is not interesting to > > > anybody. > > > > Oh, yes, this addition is very welcome indeed! It's a painpoint of ours > > at GitLab, and folks were indeed quite unsure about how to handle > > positive reviews. I was trying to guide them into the direction of > > "reverbalizing" and "thinking out aloud" parts of a patch series that > > are tricky in order to demonstrate that they have indeed read through > > the patches and understand them. Having all of this written down > > explicitly should hopefully help them. > > I'll add the perspective of my experience here that this is a good > pattern to follow. One thing that also helps is to avoid doing an > "internal review" for experienced contributors. Absolutely! We originally had an internal review first, but I also changed that procedure earlier this year. Now we have an optional internal review in case people aren't yet all that familiar with the mailing list workflow, but more experienced contributors should send their patches to the mailing list directly. For one this has sped up our own processes. But second, it allows reviewers to get more exposure to the mailing list as they are also encouraged to always review on the mailing list directly. > When Microsoft was first building up new contributors in this space, > we were overcautious and performed an internal review before going > to the mailing list. While this is good for a contributor's first > series, it loses the benefits of doing review in the open. Same. Patrick
diff --git c/Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt w/Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt index 515d470d23..f78146a410 100644 --- c/Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt +++ w/Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt @@ -72,12 +72,29 @@ guidance, and concrete tips for interacting with patches on the mailing list. could fix it. This not only helps the author to understand and fix the issue, it also deepens and improves your understanding of the topic. -- Reviews do not need to exclusively point out problems. Feel free to "think out +- Reviews do not need to exclusively point out problems. Positive + reviews indicate that it is not only the original author of the + patches who care about the issue the patches address, and are + highly encouraged. + +- Do not hesitate to give positive reviews on a series from your + work coleague. If your positive review is written well, it will + not make you look as if you two are representing corporate + interest on a series that is otherwise uninteresting to other + community members. + +- Write a positive review in such a way that others can understand + why you support the goal, the approach, and the implementation the + patches taken. Make sure to demonstrate that you thoroughly read + the series and understood problem area well enough to be able to + say if the patches are written well. Feel free to "think out loud" in your review: describe how you read & understood a complex section of a patch, ask a question about something that confused you, point out something - you found exceptionally well-written, etc. In particular, uplifting feedback - goes a long way towards encouraging contributors to participate more actively - in the Git community. + you found exceptionally well-written, etc. + +- In particular, uplifting feedback goes a long way towards + encouraging contributors to participate more actively in the Git + community. ==== Performing your review - Provide your review comments per-patch in a plaintext "Reply-All" email to the
I saw some contributors hesitate to give a positive review on patches by their coworkers. When written well, a positive review does not have to be a hollow "looks good" that rubber stamps an otherwise useless approval on a topic that is not interesting to anybody. Let's add a few paragraphs to encourage positive reviews, which is a bit harder to give than a review to point out things to improve. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> --- Documentation/ReviewingGuidelines.txt | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)