[pm-h] May Houston.pm meeting

Robert Stone drzigman at drzigman.com
Mon May 8 07:32:10 PDT 2017


Greetings,

I always have bad code I've written to volunteer.  6 months ago Robert was
an idiot and 6 months from now Robert is a jerk!

As for the actual reviews, while I like the idea of doing them "as a group"
I think that may be a bit difficult to actually do.  Having a single person
leading each review exposes us to their style and shows us what is
important to them.  Some people might not care that you used " when no
variables were being interpolated, others might have a watchful eye for
mixed usage of "!" with "and".  I think by having us watch a series of live
code reviews we get the most possible exposure to different styles and
values.  I'm less interested in getting good code (but if anyone says I
said that I'll deny it) and more interested in seeing how others actually
perform the reviews and what they are looking for.

As an example, if John was to review I'd expect him to be looking for
security issues and his bag of grep tricks, if Wade were to review I'd
expect more of a focus on code smells, algorithms, and readability.  Seeing
these two contrasted styles could be very interesting!

That being said, if you think we can make group reviews work I'm certain
down to give it a shot.  Here is a list of my CPAN modules I feel might be
appropriate for review:

*Small, Well Isolated, Easy to Follow:*
https://metacpan.org/pod/DBIx::Class::InflateColumn::Math::Currency
https://metacpan.org/pod/DBIx::Class::InflateColumn::Time
https://metacpan.org/pod/Dancer::Plugin::Legacy::Routing

*Medium Complexity, Originally Part of a Perl Mongers Presentation:*
https://metacpan.org/pod/Game::WordBrain
https://metacpan.org/pod/Crypt::Rijndael::PP

*Interesting (Command Pattern!) But Much Larger:*
https://metacpan.org/pod/WWW::eNom
https://metacpan.org/pod/WWW::LogicBoxes

I offer up all of these but recommend the small and well isolated ones in
the interests of time and ease of understanding.  Alternatively, the
modules that resulted from presentations could be interesting to see again.

However we go about this though, I think it's going to be quite
enlightening and fun!

Best Regards,
Robert Stone


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:21 AM, G. Wade Johnson <gwadej at anomaly.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 May 2017 07:11:04 -0500
> Julian Brown <jlbprof at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To the first list, may we add performance improvements as well?
>
> Sure.
> The list was meant as a starting point for discussion.
>
> G. Wade
>
> > 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/
> > >
>
>
> --
> There are 2 possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis,
> then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the
> hypothesis, then you've made a discovery.                       --
> Enrico Fermi
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170508/8b0a7729/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Houston mailing list