[pm-h] May Houston.pm meeting

[Julian Brown]

To the first list, may we add performance improvements as well?

Julian


On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:32 PM, G. Wade Johnson <gwadej at anomaly.org> wrote:

> The code review session sounds like an interesting new thing to try. In
> order to make this work, we'll need to have 2-3 modules that people are
> willing to have reviewed.
>
> Jim has volunteered some code. Anyone else?
>
> We also need to set some ground rules about the kind of review we are
> going for.
>
> - Level of pickiness
>    - Style issues?
>    - Bugs only
>    - Maintainability
> - Security?
> - Architectural improvements?
>
> I'd also suggest that people carefully think in terms of three
> different kinds of comments:
>
>   - Question
>     - Looking for clarification
>     - Might suggest minor change or documentation for clarity
>   - Comment
>     - Non-fatal issue that might be worth changing or considering
>   - Flaw
>     - Bug
>     - Logic error
>
> Obviously, we have no way of enforcing changes. And, we want to all
> remain friendly after the fact. We are just looking for good quality
> code in the end.
>
> Does this sound like an approach that everyone can agree to?
>
> G. Wade
> --
> Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd
> one. -- Voltaire
> _______________________________________________
> Houston mailing list
> Houston at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/houston
> Website: http://houston.pm.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/houston/attachments/20170508/2ce307c0/attachment.html>