On Mon, 8 May 2017 07:11:04 -0500 Julian Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> To the first list, may we add performance improvements as well? Sure. The list was meant as a starting point for discussion. G. Wade > 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/ > > -- There are 2 possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery. -- Enrico Fermi _______________________________________________ Houston mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston Website: http://houston.pm.org/
