Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
I'm not naming names because I want to focus on the behavior, not the
person..
Recently someone posted a code review consisting entirely of:
LGTM.
That was me so I'll name myself - not that one couldn't find it out from
the archives anyway.
And shortly thereafter someone else posted:
ttu ==> two thumbs up.
Using abbreviations like this in response to a code review request
suggests to me that the reviewer was too rushed to do a thorough review.
I tend to discount reviews that are this cursory. If you don't have the
time to type out some variation of: "I reviewed it; fix looks fine, feel
free to RTI listing me as a code reviewer", did you actually have time
to understand the indirect implications of a proposed change?
Yes I did but I'm almost never that verbose in replying to codereview
unless I have suggestions. If you have ever seen codereview replies
where I ask for changes you will know that I can be very verbose when I
need to be.
I also reply differently depending on who it is going to and I know that
in this case the person asking for the review would have know that I
was happy to be listed as codereviewer, given we have done several
reviews for each other before.
Now having said all that, are you actually proposing that we have a
formal language for replies to codereviews ? I'd be happy have that in
place it may actually be a good thing.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
