+1 on annotations. Would a tag be useful to disambiguate from comments
intended to stay in the PR?
On 25/06/14 16:20, John Meinel wrote:
An interesting article from IBM:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/11-proven-practices-for-peer-review/
There is a pretty strong bias for "we found these results and look at
how our tool makes it easier to follow these guidelines", but the core
results are actually pretty good.
I certainly recommend reading it and keeping some of it in mind while
you're both coding and reviewing. (Particularly how long should code
review take, and how much code should be put up for review at a time.)
Another trick that we haven't made much use of is to annotate the code
we put up for review. We have the summary description, but you can
certainly put some inline comments on your own proposal if you want to
highlight areas more clearly.
John
=:->
--
Juju-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
