From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148451F404 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:50:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753519AbeDRMuO (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:50:14 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f193.google.com ([209.85.220.193]:36226 "EHLO mail-qk0-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752961AbeDRMuN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:50:13 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f193.google.com with SMTP id a202so1597755qkg.3 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:50:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=uctS5Mnum7VwZoZny08B+B/zKgx4vLi97hr9wFjG1gI=; b=cpTjgMrzif8RcnIF9//wj/iIgnMsc5wKZgCO7PBLvouzdguDMeLjzJ8/QQArK5sQ75 QkZQ3gWXe27uH4s4RGihuU4w+z/rfSDuVlYlCYsBhFAlDtfnUAAKapx7AouhkP+EwNZT X1tNba3OEin+JmsM6uk+kJypqU1P//zSn0sHYW6QgpzBdxBJIeWZqJXeVEH6dci0Fe7A TtbkIiodBoii7WIQotWh+qjmlahr0ssnPZvhKW5Wim0B9kBScWcwg73aIDZbYBwFyZAy JAoNEWRDCvF6sNe84gaG64G0CzuBS4JkeUdJoNntBAJX95dDuSbdpXA+fJTtvrXY9/86 kluw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=uctS5Mnum7VwZoZny08B+B/zKgx4vLi97hr9wFjG1gI=; b=UDEQcLffmz1ybxKBHqFNHXj2cNmS7SkrnGYf3yAxNtdQchrKXmoY1EupjVjLBStzJ1 H3Pbql0nDh2NGUehak/PhHKb4unhsqYvZrrz5RCJVEWndps0dmghdkwGMAFYZujgu19j 1ZbAiTBy1FVR1Z7K3BfBwIvA9l9jnRB2y7lernBG3ptCD6UdAuZ/m8k9bC/nKP5u/ZiY SYMLoTPOUC9D5VOcserj2MPXxmJm4EPrdN7smyIf4FNonyu+aPI+ptbqaNyWXG2qQbxx 5pkX7K90pKgLl2uAtFovQByavZNwx+KSOU97v+hsqSfJ7XLn9+ZSmKm/Bz6RTnGTpeS3 AVag== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBfHdTgY2eFiKuVJOpn9WeT4RiKQZ9xeVAPeQmGoixgpMBMD1Y7 daVYkDTRBiR+YV1W2f0JiCWMyOnM X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZooZIDkM0GjuHmvL4egIMdEcZrjqBdLNSRl7DAbZQuBLjx0ELI+6/Q3UKITpGN+e5r3WGsf3A== X-Received: by 10.55.92.198 with SMTP id q189mr1929242qkb.63.1524055812027; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4898:6808:13e:c4e6:7a22:56f1:df04? ([2001:4898:8010:0:ae1c:7a22:56f1:df04]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p63sm867047qki.37.2018.04.18.05.50.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2018, #02; Tue, 17) To: Junio C Hamano , Stefan Beller Cc: git References: From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <287d6c83-2c7e-3138-def4-fee5d9cb9e48@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:50:10 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 4/17/2018 9:04 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >>> What's the doneness of this thing? I didn't recall seeing any >>> response, especially ones that demonstrated the reviewer carefully >>> read and thought about the issues surrounding the code. Not that I >>> spotted any problems in these patches myself, though. >> Stolee and Brandon provided a "quick LGTM" type of review >> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180409232536.GB102627@google.com/ >> https://public-inbox.org/git/9ddfee7e-025a-79c9-8d6b-700c65a14067@gmail.com/ > Yup. Giving positive reviews is harder than giving constructive > criticism. Much harder. > > As readers cannot tell from a "quick LGTM" between "I didn't read it > but it did not smell foul" and "I read it thoroughly, understood how > the solution works, it was presented well, and agree with the design > and implementation---there is nothing to add", the reviewers need to > come up with some way to express that it is the latter case rather > than the former. > > I would not claim that I've perfected my technique to do so, but > when responding to such a "good" series, I rephrase the main idea in > the series in my own words to show that I as a reviewer read the > series well enough to be able to do so, perhaps with comparison with > possible alternatives I could think of and dicussion to argue that > the solution presented in the series is better, in an attempt to > demonstrate that I am qualified to say "this one is good" with good > enough understanding of both the issue the series addresses and the > solution in the series. I'm sorry that my second message was terse. My response to v1 [1] was > I looked through these patches and only found one set of whitespace > errors. Compiles and tests fine on my machine. > > Reviewed-by: Derrick Stolee So, I pulled the code, went through it patch-by-patch, and saw that the transformations were made using the established pattern. The second review was to chime in that my v1 comments had been addressed. Thanks, -Stolee [1] https://public-inbox.org/git/6c319100-df47-3b8d-8661-24e4643ada09@gmail.com/