From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: none Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:07:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20160722140708.GA2882@jasmine> References: <579027b7.VHXjhpPxQC3AAmeY%pjotr.public12@email> <8760rznoh1.fsf@gnu.org> <20160722004130.GA10340@thebird.nl> <87k2gexf4l.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41815) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQb6t-0003Qd-HU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:07:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bQb6p-0007rR-9u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:07:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k2gexf4l.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Roel Janssen Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org > You've seen the mistakes I made, and the little syntactic things that > kept going wrong over time. Near the end of my internship, however, I > saw a positive change: Reviewers actually make little changes, instead > of leaving it up to the submitter to ``fix the indendation''. This > change makes the burden of reviewing smaller as well as the burden to > submit a package. Great! That's good. I think there is some value in asking submitters to correct even small issues, so that they have a chance to learn. But, the faster method is for the reviewer to make the correction themselves, and then explain the difference. If there are many minor changes, the reviewer can attach a diff to their reply.