From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 02:11:52 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952F716A420; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6348713C447; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:11:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85AF46B66; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:11:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:11:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Kip Macy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071214020704.A86532@fledge.watson.org> References: <200712122021.lBCKLdvt045540@repoman.freebsd.org> <20071213223319.E81630@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <4761BB7C.3010907@elischer.org> <4761CB3F.3030905@delphij.net> <4761CDBA.9010906@samsco.org> <20071214005643.R86532@fledge.watson.org> <4761D791.5010003@samsco.org> <20071214011347.M86532@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Scott Long , src-committers@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, Kip Macy , cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer , "Bjoern A. Zeeb" 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:11:52 -0000 On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Kip Macy wrote: > On Dec 13, 2007 5:30 PM, Robert Watson 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... Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge