Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:06 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: scottl@samsco.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, d@delphij.net, kmacy@FreeBSD.org, kip.macy@gmail.com, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, julian@elischer.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/netinet tcp_ofld.c tcp_ofld.h tcp_var.h toedev.h src/sys/sys socket.h Message-ID: <20071213214606.5e6c00bd.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20071214020704.A86532@fledge.watson.org> References: <200712122021.lBCKLdvt045540@repoman.freebsd.org> <20071213223319.E81630@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4761BB7C.3010907@elischer.org> <b1fa29170712131605n106236bbvee862fe2d560bf0c@mail.gmail.com> <4761CB3F.3030905@delphij.net> <4761CDBA.9010906@samsco.org> <20071214005643.R86532@fledge.watson.org> <4761D791.5010003@samsco.org> <20071214011347.M86532@fledge.watson.org> <b1fa29170712131748o7020308fsbbc47ede9b8d0c80@mail.gmail.com> <20071214020704.A86532@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:11:51 +0000 (GMT) Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Kip Macy wrote: > > > On Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote Sadly, > > often the only way to get a real discussion going is to make the immediacy > > of it relevant. To date I haven't made any material structural changes to > > TCP, I've only added the hooks that will be needed. As requested by another > > I will add some commentary on the purpose of each of the individual hooks to > > the header file. > > I'd certainly agree with the observation that it takes immediacy to force > review and discussion to take place. However, I think it's also the case that > continuous review of a significant WIP is very time-consuming for the > reviewers. By structuring the review process a bit (i.e., identifying > specific spots in the design, implementation, etc, where seeking review makes > sense and there's a fairly fixed work product for someone to look at rather > than a rapidly-moving target in which any comments are rapidly invalidated), I > find I tend to receive much more productive reviews from others. Certainly, > "The attached patch is going into the tree on/about date X" is the most > effective technique, other than just committing the change, to prompt > review... The patch size (line count) matters a lot as well. It's much easier to get a 10 line review than a 100 line review. Especially if, as you noted, it's a significant WIP. -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071213214606.5e6c00bd.trhodes>