From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9131AC4332F for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1352180AbiBKR24 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:56 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:47316 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1352165AbiBKR2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:55 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4C502C0 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC8316A04D; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=/bHHc3vdFMeO 0EFJM4JHs4AcuzPuEgj6csb7/6GgybY=; b=MHEGLKGX4vMTsBfLtjEtaqdg7jAn BIs1QD4ppBfYheBRT1wKitD3by2NYMOzAFTCbO6B75/4P4DXbGK6y3ED0xJZTAEQ beqTJmgLnYMrs814fpMTP25ty5npw9N1EkJ3oL6eJmX94YVxai7DjiAM3B2SKE7Z e6TtRrcCJz6UG24= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967C816A04C; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:53 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.185.212.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0310B16A04A; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 12:28:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: calvinwan@google.com Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Review process improvements: drafting a ReviewingPatches doc References: <20220210233346.1009735-1-calvinwan@google.com> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:28:49 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20220210233346.1009735-1-calvinwan@google.com> (calvinwan@google.com's message of "Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:33:45 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 13FF8A2E-8B60-11EC-86DF-CBA7845BAAA9-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org calvinwan@google.com writes: > In continuation of Emily=E2=80=99s "Review process improvements"[1], I = am > drafting a ReviewingPatches doc to help standardize the review process > here on the git mailing list and to provide a rubric/checklist for new > reviewers. In order to do so, I am looking to compile examples and > input from everyone by asking the list a set of questions biweekly. > Please contextualize your answer in terms of whether this was a > maintainer, individual, or drive-by review. Often people other than the patch contributors themselves find others' reviews a useful learning opportunity. I take it that your "contextualize" request is asking for comments like "As the maintainer, I found this review by an area expert very helpful because ...", as well as "I sent this patch and a drive-by typofix at this URL was not very helpful"? When soliciting input from the list, it would probably make it easier for others if you led by example by sending your answers, to show the level of detail you'd find useful.