Re: [Xen-API] [PATCH v2 5/6] Add guide on Communication Best Practice

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07.10.2019 18:13, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 9/27/19 10:14 AM, 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:
> 
> FWIW I don't think this document prohibits terse replies.  It points out
> that they can come across as unfriendly, and they can be perceived as
> rude in some cultures; both of which are true.  It then *recommends*
> that reviewers compensate for it in a review opening (i.e., once per
> patch / series) which expresses appreciation; which is both helpful and
> relatively low cost.
> 
> The point of the opening is to set the tone.  If you start out with
> something positive, and ends with "thanks", then a long series of terse
> comments is more likely to be read as simply being efficient.  If the
> entire review consists of nothing but criticism or terse comments, it's
> more likely to be read as annoyance on the part of the reviewer.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> This sort of sounds like you are *intending* to express annoyance?

Implicitly by being terse, yes. I've been trying to avoid expressing
such explicitly, but I have to admit there are (luckily only few)
cases where I find it pretty hard to stay away.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-api mailing list
Xen-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-api