From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 14 03:22:39 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ACB16A417; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (pittgoth.com [205.134.163.206]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C1E13C4DD; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost.fbsdsecure.org (net-ix.gw.ai.net [205.134.160.6]) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lBE2k6ea018368 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:46:06 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: Robert Watson 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> <4761CB3F.3030905@delphij.net> <4761CDBA.9010906@samsco.org> <20071214005643.R86532@fledge.watson.org> <4761D791.5010003@samsco.org> <20071214011347.M86532@fledge.watson.org> <20071214020704.A86532@fledge.watson.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:44:53 +0000 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:22:39 -0000 On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 02:11:51 +0000 (GMT) Robert Watson wrote: > > 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... 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