Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] doc/developer: Reviews must be constructive
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 16:06:59 +0200
Message-ID: <169297241999.20400.14522693439211776920@lain.khirnov.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABLWnS9O4rKkqJqCeGhDe+dDtL7iVMKsadU_9tL3mFF8JhQzBg@mail.gmail.com>

Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2023-08-25 03:56:44)
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
> 
> > Suggested text is from Anton
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> >  doc/developer.texi | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> > index 0c2f2cd7d1..383120daaa 100644
> > --- a/doc/developer.texi
> > +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> > @@ -853,6 +853,9 @@ Everyone is welcome to review patches. Also if you are
> > waiting for your patch
> >  to be reviewed, please consider helping to review other patches, that is
> > a great
> >  way to get everyone's patches reviewed sooner.
> >
> > +Reviews must be constructive and when rejecting a patch the reviewer must
> > explain
> > +their reasons and ideally suggest an alternative approach.
> >
> 
> NAK
> we shouldn't put extra burden on reviewers, nor guilt trap them into
> suggesting an alternative approach

I don't understand this argument at all.

First, "ideally suggest an alternative approach" is an aspiration, not a
hard requirement.

Second, I don't think reviewers should be able to reject patches with no
explanation. The author/submitter spent time and effort on writing
and submitting the patch - it is only fair that if it's to be rejected,
it should be done for a clear reason.

> offlist and irc discussion is of course recommended,

I absolutely do not recommend offlist discussion, as it is not visible
to other developers or preserved in the archives.

> but writing this rules in stone will only deter good reviews, in my
> opinion

Non-constructive reviews without an explanation are never good reviews.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-08-25 14:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-24 19:56 [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] doc/developer patch review improvements Michael Niedermayer
2023-08-24 19:56 ` [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] doc/developer: Reviews must be constructive Michael Niedermayer
2023-08-25  1:56   ` Vittorio Giovara
2023-08-25  6:46     ` Nicolas George
2023-08-25  9:22       ` Paul B Mahol
2023-08-25 17:23       ` Vittorio Giovara
2023-08-25 14:06     ` Anton Khirnov [this message]
2023-08-25 14:22   ` Rémi Denis-Courmont
2023-08-25 14:58     ` Anton Khirnov
2023-08-25 15:09       ` Rémi Denis-Courmont
2023-08-25 15:23         ` Anton Khirnov
2023-08-25 17:26           ` Vittorio Giovara
2023-08-25 17:35             ` Anton Khirnov
2023-08-25 17:34         ` Leo Izen
2023-08-25 17:39           ` Nicolas George
2023-08-24 19:56 ` [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/2] doc/developer: Code pushed without patches on ffmpeg-devel must be announced on the ML Michael Niedermayer
2023-08-24 20:04   ` Andreas Rheinhardt
2023-08-25 15:34     ` Michael Niedermayer
2023-08-25 15:36       ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
2023-08-25 15:47         ` Paul B Mahol
2023-08-25 16:27         ` Nicolas George
2023-08-25 16:33           ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
2023-08-25 17:16             ` Nicolas George
2023-08-25 17:25               ` James Almer
2023-08-25 17:42                 ` Nicolas George
2023-08-25 21:41                   ` Ronald S. Bultje
2023-08-24 20:06   ` James Almer
2023-08-24 20:23     ` Andreas Rheinhardt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=169297241999.20400.14522693439211776920@lain.khirnov.net \
    --to=anton@khirnov.net \
    --cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \
		ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com
	public-inbox-index ffmpegdev

Example config snippet for mirrors.


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git