-
Or…
Just hold a meeting and explain what’s happening with your reviewers? Then assign different people to do a “fine comb pass”?
I think this is only relevant in a context where this type of effort is required to get an offline review, notably open source where people aren’t being paid to be responsible. If I work with you and you refuse to attend a review meeting for a large improvement, we’ll have a problem.
-
Author Here
That probably shouldn’t be the norm though, right? If every diff requires an in-person, synchronous meeting between the writer and the reviewers, isn’t it going to take forever to ship each diff? Isn’t it better, when possible, to just make your diffs easy to review so they don’t require a full fledge meeting?
-
In my experience, it’s pretty rare for a large improvement to be so tightly coupled as to not be able to be broken into a couple smaller improvements.
There’s of course a tradeoff , since more reviews takes more time. But, inversely, single-issue reviews take much less time than multi-issue ones. In a multi-issue review, you not only have to consider each issue, but the interactions between each issue.
I’m a major fan of tiny reviews though, so a bit biased.
-
The amount of bike shedding here is staggering.