Great article.
As further reading for anybody who is interested, there is a book called “Best
Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review”. It addresses the various methods of code
review and how to best tune it for your project. (It’s available online
somewhere.)
--
Tyler Romeo
0x405D34A7C86B42DF
On September 24, 2014 at 18:03:03, Sumana Harihareswara (suma...@wikimedia.org)
wrote:
I just read
http://sarah.thesharps.us/2014/09/01/the-gentle-art-of-patch-review/ and it
made a lot of sense to me as a way to speed up the first response a new
patch gets.
Instead of putting off reviewing first-time contributions and thoroughly
reviewing everything in the contribution at once, I propose a three-phase
review process for maintainers:
1. Is the idea behind the contribution sound?
2. Is the contribution architected correctly?
3. Is the contribution polished?
The post author, a Linux kernel developer, goes into more detail in the
post; it's worth reading even if you decide this approach isn't your style.
(Reminder: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Code_review/Getting_reviews
and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Code_review are worth
re-skimming.)
Sumana Harihareswara
Senior Technical Writer
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l