I believe this is against the code review guidelines. «Comments must be meaningful and should help an author to change the code the right way.» [1]
If you get a comment that says «split this change into the smaller commit» I'm sorry, but it doesn't help at all. «Leave constructive comments Not everyone in the community is a native English speaker, so make sure your remarks are meaningful and helpful for the patch author to change his code, but *also polite and respectful*. The review is not really about the score. It's all about the comments. When you are reviewing code, always make sure that your comments are useful and helpful to the author of the patch. Try to avoid leaving comments just to show that you reviewed something if they don't really add anything meaningful» [2] So, when an author of a patch gets -1 with the statement «split this code», I believe it is not constructive. At least you should roughly describe how you see it, how the patch could be split, you should be helpful to the author of a patch. So, first of all, you need to review the patch! :) I want to emphasize this: « *The review is not really about thescore. It's all about the comments.*» «In almost all cases, a negative review should be accompanied by *clearinstructions* for the submitter how they might fix the patch.» [4] I believe that the statement "split this change into the smaller commit" is too generic, it is mostly the same as the "this patch needs further work". It doesn't bring any additional instructions how exactly a patch could be fixed. Please also take a loot at the following conversation from mailing list: [3]. «It's not so easy to guess what you mean, and in case of a clumsy piece of code, not even that certain that better code can be used instead. So always provide an example of what you would rather want to see. So instead of pointing to indentation rules, just show properly indented code. Instead of talking about grammar or spelling, just type the corrected comment or docstring. Finally, instead of saying "use list comprehension here" or "don't use has_key", just type your proposal of how the code should look like. Then we have something concrete to talk about. Of course, you can also say why you think this is better, but an example is very important. If you are not sure how the improved code would look like, just let it go, chances are it would look even worse.» [3] So, please, bring something concrete to talk about. If you are not sure how the improved code would look like, just let it go! «The simplest way to talk about code is to just show the code. When you want the author to fix something, rewrite it in a different way, format the code differently, etc. -- it's best to just write in the comment how you want that code to look like. It's much faster than having the author guess what you meant in your descriptions, and also lets us learn much faster by seeing examples.» [2] [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tyKhHQRQqTEW6tS7_LCajEpzqn55f-f5nDmtzIeJ2uY/edit [2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CodeReviewGuidelines [3] http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg07831.html [4] http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html#peer-review Best regards, Andrey Tykhonov (tkhno)
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
