|
|
|
|
|
|
by jiveturkey
1304 days ago
|
|
|
I quite agree with the proposition you are making here. It goes to the very heart of the matter, does it not. The better you are at giving detailed, explicit and concrete feedback about each and every particular aspect of a diff (NOTE: both good and bad), the better and more competent you clearly are, and the more of a true champion for the cause you are proving to be. Time and time again, I wish my reviewers would just lay it all out on the table. As opposed to the limited and perfunctory LGTM |
|
|
I've often seen reviewers delivering essays to back up their arguments, which essentially boil down to "because I prefer it this way".
Focusing on pure word count doesn't mean that the feedback is valid, or even explains the reasoning well. If anything, it encourages nitpicky and long winded comments based on personal preference.
Often, less is more. If you can get a point across by a small code suggestion, do that instead. But definitely don't fall into the trap of suggesting huge chunks of code, or rewriting parts of it. Sometimes even asking a question to improve understanding is better than arguing a point.
And then other times, especially for trivial changes, "LGTM" or just a blank approval is perfectly fine as well. No need to waste time discussing trivial things if everyone is on the same boat.