Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.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 17:22:45 +0300
Message-ID: <21163519.OHWXfqoMUD@basile.remlab.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230824195615.19017-2-michael@niedermayer.cc>

Le torstaina 24. elokuuta 2023, 22.56.14 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> 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

Well, frankly, no. You're really confusing code reviews with teaching here. A 
code review is first and foremost meant to find problems and avoid adding bugs 
or bad designs into the code base. It is not meant to solve problems. Of 
course, it is preferable for a review to be constructive, but it is not always 
possible or reasonable.

Sometimes code just does not belong in.

Sometimes the reviewer can prove or make strong arguments that a patch is 
broken or bad, without having constructive feedback to give. This is just like 
mathematical proofs. Some are constructive, some aren't.

And then sometimes an argument has been argued to death previously and there 
is really no point to rehash it again and again. If people cannot agree, they 
should refer to the TC, not brute force the review through overwhelming 
insistance.

Also what Vittorio already pointed out. Ultimately, this is also a question of 
what to optimise for. And in my 20+ years experience with software development 
and open-source, I think it's abundantly clear that available skilled 
reviewers are an ever scarcer resource than skilled available developers, so 
you should not optimise for the later.

So -1 as far as I am concerned.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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 14:22 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
2023-08-25 14:22   ` Rémi Denis-Courmont [this message]
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=21163519.OHWXfqoMUD@basile.remlab.net \
    --to=remi@remlab.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