To the first list, may we add performance improvements as well? Julian
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:32 PM, G. Wade Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > The code review session sounds like an interesting new thing to try. In > order to make this work, we'll need to have 2-3 modules that people are > willing to have reviewed. > > Jim has volunteered some code. Anyone else? > > We also need to set some ground rules about the kind of review we are > going for. > > - Level of pickiness > - Style issues? > - Bugs only > - Maintainability > - Security? > - Architectural improvements? > > I'd also suggest that people carefully think in terms of three > different kinds of comments: > > - Question > - Looking for clarification > - Might suggest minor change or documentation for clarity > - Comment > - Non-fatal issue that might be worth changing or considering > - Flaw > - Bug > - Logic error > > Obviously, we have no way of enforcing changes. And, we want to all > remain friendly after the fact. We are just looking for good quality > code in the end. > > Does this sound like an approach that everyone can agree to? > > G. Wade > -- > Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd > one. -- Voltaire > _______________________________________________ > Houston mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston > Website: http://houston.pm.org/ >
_______________________________________________ Houston mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston Website: http://houston.pm.org/
