From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Workflow question Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20070925193416.GB8564@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <46F93A99.5080707@gmail.com> <46F95CCC.4080209@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Russ Brown , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 25 21:34:26 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IaGAr-00061x-OZ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:34:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752903AbXIYTeT (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752765AbXIYTeT (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:19 -0400 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:4836 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752734AbXIYTeS (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 19374 invoked by uid 111); 25 Sep 2007 19:34:17 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:17 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:16 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46F95CCC.4080209@op5.se> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:09:00PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > We came to the same conclusion at our workplace. Email works great, but > it's faster and better to just walk over to your colleague and ask what > he/she thinks about something. One of the projects I am working on does things this way, but I have to admit that I miss the email code-review process. There are often small fixups (stylistic, minor nits, "I would have done it this way...", etc) that are worth pointing out at the time, but are more painful to go back and correct much later. And documenting those discussions can really help other developers besides the author and reviewer. -Peff