On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> 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