On Monday, 27 June 2016 at 00:01:34 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Several people during DConf asked abut tips and tricks on code review. So I wrote an article about it:


It's a nice read.

One comment: perhaps the balance has tipped a bit much to "making a good PR", rather than "doing a good review". I feel the merit of a review is to improve the contribution, rather than to decide whether it is mergable or not. Although it is in the article, I think it could be given a little more attention: the review itself should contribute to the project, i.e. the reviewer should (try hard to) propose alternatives if something should/could be improved. Criticism is very easy, _constructive_ criticism isn't; I think the latter is needed to gain a contributor, and the first does the opposite.


Reply via email to