| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
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
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
