Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2018, #02; Tue, 17)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:

>>  What's the doneness of this thing?  I didn't recall seeing any
>>  response, especially ones that demonstrated the reviewer carefully
>>  read and thought about the issues surrounding the code.  Not that I
>>  spotted any problems in these patches myself, though.
>
> Stolee and Brandon provided a "quick LGTM" type of review
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20180409232536.GB102627@google.com/
> https://public-inbox.org/git/9ddfee7e-025a-79c9-8d6b-700c65a14067@gmail.com/

Yup.  Giving positive reviews is harder than giving constructive
criticism.  Much harder.  

As readers cannot tell from a "quick LGTM" between "I didn't read it
but it did not smell foul" and "I read it thoroughly, understood how
the solution works, it was presented well, and agree with the design
and implementation---there is nothing to add", the reviewers need to
come up with some way to express that it is the latter case rather
than the former.

I would not claim that I've perfected my technique to do so, but
when responding to such a "good" series, I rephrase the main idea in
the series in my own words to show that I as a reviewer read the
series well enough to be able to do so, perhaps with comparison with
possible alternatives I could think of and dicussion to argue that
the solution presented in the series is better, in an attempt to
demonstrate that I am qualified to say "this one is good" with good
enough understanding of both the issue the series addresses and the
solution in the series.