AttentionSet Best Practices | Aviator Documentation

AttentionSet works well when everyone agrees to some standard principles of operating: Defining a rough response time helps the author manage the right expectations without getting to the point of constant reminders, or escalations. You can also define a team-wide SLO separately for an internal and an external code review using the Aviator’s SLO management . We recommend an SLO of 1 business day for all PRs that have < 200 lines of change. Google also recommends a fast code review iteration time for improved developer productivity. If you think that you will not get to the review within the suggested response time window, it’s recommended to remove attention from yourself and inform the author. As an author who has the attention, if you change requires a bit of rework before it can be sent back for review, it’s recommended to move the PR to a draft or remove the attention from the reviewers. As an author, if you assign an optional reviewer just as an FYI and you do expect a proper review from the reviewer, you should remove attention from that reviewer. Likewise, as a reviewer if you are assigned an optional review that you do not intend to get to, you should remove attention from yourself. Previous AttentionSet Next How to View AttentionSet for Others Last updated 10 months ago Was this helpful?

The technical content provided seems to be mostly clear, but there are a few areas that could be improved for clarity and accuracy:

1. Incomplete Sentence: The phrase "using the Aviator’s SLO management" is incomplete. It would be helpful to provide more context or a complete sentence to explain what "Aviator’s SLO management" is and how it is used.

2. Grammar and Clarity:

   • "As an author who has the attention, if you change requires a bit of rework..." should be "if your change requires a bit of rework..."
   • "As an author, if you assign an optional reviewer just as an FYI and you do expect a proper review from the reviewer..." should be "and you do not expect a proper review..."

3. Formatting:

   • The terms "AttentionSet" and "SLO management" could be formatted consistently, perhaps using italics or bold, to indicate they are specific concepts or tools.
   • The section "Previous AttentionSet Next How to View AttentionSet for Others" seems to be navigation text and should be formatted or placed in a way that distinguishes it from the main content.

4. Clarification on Terms:

   • It might be helpful to define what "AttentionSet" is, as it seems to be a specific concept or tool related to the content. Providing a brief explanation or a link to more information would be beneficial.

5. Consistency: Ensure that the use of terms like "PR" (Pull Request) is consistent and clear throughout the document. If "PR" is used, it should be defined at its first occurrence.

Overall, the content is mostly clear, but addressing these points would improve its clarity and usability.

No product messaging analysis available for this page.

No competitive analysis available for this page.