On 2011-09-06 16:00, Julian Edwards wrote:
Ian's recent review of Henning's JavaScript branch shows that Ian has
grown from a shy, good-natured, if-that's-alright-with-you commenter to
a vicious shark who will go as deep as it takes to find out what's wrong
with your branch. And that's how I like my reviewers. Congratulations
Ian!
I'm going to remember that next time I review one of your branches ;)
Seriously, please do.
A rubber-stamp approval can save you minutes or more in the short term,
but it does nothing for your longer-term development.
A rubber-stamp approval leaves you without proof that the reviewer has
read and understood the branch.
A rubber-stamp approval sets no performance bar, no communicable
standard for reviewers to live up to.
A rubber-stamp approval does not tell you whether your branch was
excellent, so-so, or too hard to read.
A rubber-stamp approval buys you time that you could use towards the
self-improvement you're missing out on, but fails to tell you where you
need it most.
A rubber-stamp approval deprives you of a chance to harmonize your part
of the codebase with our best practices.
So I don't like getting rubber-stamped any more than I like to
rubber-stamp others. Good reviews take time, and that's not time I put
in for the sheer fun of it.
Then again, a rubber-stamp review does mean that I wake up to an email
saying my overnight branch landed at 02:50 instead of 03:00! Pure
profit, right? :)
Jeroen
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
