Re: [xen 4.6 retrospective] Possible solution together with the comments will be helpful

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>]

On 31/08/15 09:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 31.08.15 at 10:24, <feng.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>> = Issue / Observation =
>> Sometimes the review comments are quite open, it doesn't contain a possible 
>> solution or a clear direction,
>> so it is not clear for the contributor on how to effectively address them. 
>> At least, in Linux kernel and KVM side, if the maintainers have
>> objection to the implementation of the patches, they will give a possible 
>> solution or a direction which is very
>> helpful for the contributor to address the comments. Hence this will make 
>> the review discussion more effective and productive and save both reviewer 
>> and developer's time.
>>
>> = Possible Solution / Improvement =
>> Try to give some possible solutions with the comments, especially for some 
>> big changes which affect a lot
>> to the whole patch-set.
> I think when a solution can be thought of in the context of reviewing,
> it is being given. I believe I know which case you allude to here, and
> I'm afraid it's not always reasonable for the reviewer(s) to do the
> contributor's work of finding a solution when none is obvious.

Personally, I always try to state clearly when I can't suggest a solution.

Having said that, it is easy to make assumptions about the way a
reviewee will interpret a comment.  I expect this most likely comes down
to existing knowledge of related areas, meaning that the same review
comment might be fine for one contributor, and confusing to another.

Again, I do my best to try and be as clear as I can, but I am aware that
I don't always manage it.  My apologies if this is the case.

If anything is not clear, the best action is to ask a direct question on
the relevant thread, even if it as simple as "I am sorry, but I do not
understand this comment".  I certainly, and I expect all reviewers, will
be far happier answering a question to aid with clarity, than for the
contributor to go away and have a stab in the dark and come back with a
v$N+1 which most likely needs further work.

~Andrew