On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:23:45 -0500
Shane Landrum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your talking about this reminded me of a peeve I've had lately.
> I need webpage testing that doesn't suck. In particular, I need
> something like Inline::Webchat without its strange limitations.
> I also need more abs
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 10:23:45AM -0500, Shane Landrum wrote:
> > When we first introduced this most of the reviews were for very
> > basic things: you forgot strict or warnings. You didn't untaint that
> > variable. You're not following our coding standards there.
> Ah, ok. So were you just grep
We've found a couple of things. First, we have a "reviewformat" program which
diffs the code vs. RCS, so you have a change-barred version of the code for
the review. Anything with a change bar has to be explained in the review.
Second, anything that hash to be explained during the code review nee
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:32:54AM +, Tony Bowden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The first big lesson was:
>
> - automate whatever review standards you can
>
> When we first introduced this most of the reviews were for very
> basic things: you forgot strict or warnings. You didn't untaint th
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:32:54AM +, Tony Bowden wrote:
> Over time the build script got more and more elaborate as it tried to
> catch more and more of these. (Mike, did you ever get your stuff finished
> to catch implicit dependencies, where Module Foo didn't do a 'use Bar'
> but everythin
> Mandatory, Managed Code Reviews is basically where each individual
> change is reviewed by another member of the team before being committed.
> We used it at Blackstar (AFAIK they still do, Tony?)
I believe so, but haven't been there for over 6 months now, so I'm not
sure ...
> So if the m
