[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: none
From: |
Leo Famulari |
Subject: |
Re: none |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:07:08 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) |
> You've seen the mistakes I made, and the little syntactic things that
> kept going wrong over time. Near the end of my internship, however, I
> saw a positive change: Reviewers actually make little changes, instead
> of leaving it up to the submitter to ``fix the indendation''. This
> change makes the burden of reviewing smaller as well as the burden to
> submit a package. Great!
That's good. I think there is some value in asking submitters to correct
even small issues, so that they have a chance to learn. But, the faster
method is for the reviewer to make the correction themselves, and then
explain the difference. If there are many minor changes, the reviewer
can attach a diff to their reply.
- Re: none, (continued)
- Re: none, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, Jookia, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, Jookia, 2016/07/24
- Re: none, Leo Famulari, 2016/07/24
- Re: none, Jookia, 2016/07/24
- Re: none, Christopher Allan Webber, 2016/07/24
- Re: none, Andreas Enge, 2016/07/24
- Re: none, Roel Janssen, 2016/07/22
- Re: none,
Leo Famulari <=
- Re: none, Vincent Legoll, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, myglc2, 2016/07/22
- Re: none, Tomáš Čech, 2016/07/23
- Review process, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/22
- Re: Review process, Pjotr Prins, 2016/07/22
- Re: Review process, Alex Kost, 2016/07/23
- Re: Review process, Mathieu Lirzin, 2016/07/23
- Re: Review process, Alex Kost, 2016/07/24
- Re: Review process, Mathieu Lirzin, 2016/07/24