On Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 07:02:21 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
I think anything sufficiently large is likely to be reviewed in
that order. In a lot of cases all the work for 1 - 8 is
progressively done while working out 9. Should people not
mention the smaller mistakes / disagreements they find along
the way until they've reached the end and can provide a final
judgement?
I think that consideration should be given to splitting reviews
into two phases by policy:
1. The big picture: refining the overall design, and debating
whether the change is worthwhile or not. This ends when the
change has been formally approved by someone who has the
authority to do so.
2. Completing and polishing the implementation, until it is
actually ready to merge.
Distinguish clearly between these phases, and make it clear to
submitters that they are not required or expected to fix/finish
all the little stuff until (1) is over, since there's a good
chance it will all be irrelevant, anyway.
Obviously there will be some fuzziness as to whether an issue
belongs in (1) or (2), but there's lots and lots of stuff that
clearly falls into one or the other.
One of the things that such a policy would accomplish is to
highlight the essential (but often ignored) question, "Who
actually has authority to approve this?"
