|
|
| Welcome to the Monastery | |
| PerlMonks |
Re: Formal code review specifications and reporting formatby pdcawley (Hermit) |
| on May 16, 2002 at 07:45 UTC ( [id://166978]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
This is an archived low-energy page for bots and other anonmyous visitors. Please sign up if you are a human and want to interact.
I'm faintly wary of 'rigid' criteria for code reviews, especially having spent some time dealing with different 'legacy' code bases, which all seem to go to hell in their own different, yet depressingly similar ways. My general approach when asked to do a review is to follow a checklist along these lines:
If you can't do that, write the stuff down. Start with the good things, give an overview of issues to address. Address them, suggesting solutions (or requesting further discussion for the hard bits), and finish by reiterating the good bits and inviting further discussion. Yes, these suggestions are touchy feely, but I'm a touchy feely kind of guy. Checklists are all well and good, but try and go beyond the 'ticking boxes' Kwalitee Assurance approach. Try and treat code reviews (either giving or receiving them) as a learning opportunity. Be aware of your reviewee's feelings and don't trample on them unduly. But don't ignore problems either, that's doing nobody any favours.
In Section
Meditations
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||