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.