I liked the post, but I'm not sure what exactly we should change in our
code reviews. Could you explain?
On 01/21/2013 01:40 PM, Ori Livneh wrote:
There's a useful blog post on code review at Mozilla by Mozilla developer David
Humphrey on his blog: <http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569>.
I like his breakdown of different types of code reviews. It seems like at Mozilla there
is a lot of room for the patch submitter to indicate to reviewers what sort of review is
needed for a particular patch, ranging from requests for manual testing and careful
scrutiny all the way to what Humphrey calls "catechism reviews", in which the
committer uses a review request to announce her intent and solicit a basic sanity-check.
Unofficially such reviews do not exist at the WMF because we are all infallibly
meticulous and diligent about testing every branch of every code change. But
unofficially they do, of course. It'd be nice if such reviews were formally
sanctioned (with whatever qualifications). I'm interested to hear other
people's thoughts.
--
Ori Livneh
_______________________________________________
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
