Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:25:02 -0700 From: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org>, "David E. Cross" <david@crossfamilyweb.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Review D38047 ... and then there was one.... Message-ID: <AE37187C-79D0-4B5E-87F0-6BB52822F03B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20241007150830.939DC334@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <20241007150830.939DC334@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Oct 7, 2024, at 08:08, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > Yes. I was about to suggest this. Plus, any proposed commit log message > must answer the questions why, what and how. With special attention to why= . I have the same feelings as Cy. FWIW, part of the reason why large/complex changes like this languish in my r= eview queues is in part due to reasons like this. Unless I am a SME in the area who is driven to understand what the change ai= ms to achieve, I will not take the time to review large/complex chances. I h= ave a lot of other things in my life which take priority over large code rev= iews. Please break the large change down into a smaller set of changes/reviews to m= ake it easier to review the overall change effectively. Cheers, -Enji=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AE37187C-79D0-4B5E-87F0-6BB52822F03B>