🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bt5M67.273.2@cs.cmu.edu> tgl+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) writes:
>cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>
>> I think the 
>> community would be much better served by a much faster and much less 
>> nit-picky mechanism that precluded a reviewer from being able to say
>> things like, "I don't like the way he did that".    
>
>Well, I think that even very nit-picky comments may be valuable...
>
>On the other hand, if the process allows a reviewer to *prevent a package
>from being posted* on the basis of minor quibbles, that is a big problem...

I can speak from personal experience since I've reviewed a few packages.
What I've tried to do is separate the nits from the major items and to
follow the voting guidelines that are the same as what we use for walkthrus
BTW ->

	Would you suggest that this submission:

   	- be accepted for posting as is
   	- be accepted after minor revisions (that you have detailed)
   	- be returned to the author with a recommendation to make
     	  major changes and re-submit
   	- be rejected

In one case at least the author disagreed with some of my "minor revisions"
or agreed to make them in a future release but I said ok the second time
anyway.

If one reviewer was being overly finicky, I think the process would still
work fine since other reviewers would balance the one holdout.

Actually I think the biggest problem is getting enough reviewers with
time and interest to check some software out. I've seen 2nd and 3rd
call for reviewers for some packages and have felt guilty that I did
not have time to lend a hand.

So if you've got time and interest sign up and help the process! If you
think people are too nit-picky, sign up and be more accepting of minor
stylistic differences! Reviewing is a democracy as far as I can see!
-- 
Jerry M. Carlin	(510) 823-2441 jmcarli@srv.pacbell.com
Alchemical Engineer and Virtual Realist