From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [xen 4.6 retrospective] Possible solution together with the comments will be helpful Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:47:13 +0100 Message-ID: <55E45AE1.2040709@citrix.com> References: <55E42D72020000780009E33C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZWPQs-0004mx-Dp for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:47:34 +0000 In-Reply-To: <55E42D72020000780009E33C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich , Feng Wu Cc: Lars Kurth , xen devel , "community.manager@xenproject.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 31/08/15 09:33, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 31.08.15 at 10:24, 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