Re: [win-pv-devel] [PATCH v2 5/6] Add guide on Communication Best Practice

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.09.2019 21:39, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > +### Verbose vs. terse
> > +Due to the time it takes to review and compose code reviewer, reviewers 
> > often adopt a
> > +terse style. It is not unusual to see review comments such as
> > +> typo
> > +> s/resions/regions/
> > +> coding style
> > +> coding style: brackets not needed
> > +etc.
> > +
> > +Terse code review style has its place and can be productive for both the 
> > reviewer and
> > +the author. However, overuse can come across as unfriendly, lacking 
> > empathy and
> > +can thus create a negative impression with the author of a patch. This is 
> > in particular
> > +true, when you do not know the author or the author is a newcomer. Terse
> > +communication styles can also be perceived as rude in some cultures.
> 
> And another remark here: Not being terse in situations like the ones
> enumerated as examples above is a double waste of the reviewer's time:
> They shouldn't even need to make such comments, especially not many
> times for a single patch (see your mention of "overuse"). I realize
> we still have no automated mechanism to check style aspects, but
> anybody can easily look over their patches before submitting them.
> And for an occasional issue I think a terse reply is quite reasonable
> to have.
> 
> Overall I'm seeing the good intentions of this document, yet I'd still
> vote at least -1 on it if it came to a vote. Following even just a
> fair part of it is a considerable extra amount of time to invest in
> reviews, when we already have a severe reviewing bottleneck. If I have
> to judge between doing a bad (stylistically according to this doc, not
> technically) review or none at all (because of time constraints), I'd
> favor the former. Unless of course I'm asked to stop doing so, in
> which case I'd expect whoever asks to arrange for the reviews to be
> done by someone else in due course.

Reading the document, I think Jan has a point that it gives the
impression that following the suggestions would take significant
efforts, while actually I don't think Lars meant it that way at all, and
I don't think it should be the case either.

Maybe we should highlight and encourage "clarity" instead of "verbosity"
of the communication, and encourage "expressing appreciation" to
newcomers, not necessarily to seasoned contributors.

The ultimate goal of this document is actually to *reduce* our overall
efforts by making our communication more efficient, not to increase
efforts. Maybe it is worth saying this too.

_______________________________________________
win-pv-devel mailing list
win-pv-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/win-pv-devel