Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2023-08-25 03:56:44) > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > wrote: > > > Suggested text is from Anton > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > > --- > > doc/developer.texi | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi > > index 0c2f2cd7d1..383120daaa 100644 > > --- a/doc/developer.texi > > +++ b/doc/developer.texi > > @@ -853,6 +853,9 @@ Everyone is welcome to review patches. Also if you are > > waiting for your patch > > to be reviewed, please consider helping to review other patches, that is > > a great > > way to get everyone's patches reviewed sooner. > > > > +Reviews must be constructive and when rejecting a patch the reviewer must > > explain > > +their reasons and ideally suggest an alternative approach. > > > > NAK > we shouldn't put extra burden on reviewers, nor guilt trap them into > suggesting an alternative approach
I don't understand this argument at all. First, "ideally suggest an alternative approach" is an aspiration, not a hard requirement. Second, I don't think reviewers should be able to reject patches with no explanation. The author/submitter spent time and effort on writing and submitting the patch - it is only fair that if it's to be rejected, it should be done for a clear reason. > offlist and irc discussion is of course recommended, I absolutely do not recommend offlist discussion, as it is not visible to other developers or preserved in the archives. > but writing this rules in stone will only deter good reviews, in my > opinion Non-constructive reviews without an explanation are never good reviews. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".