[pm-h] May Houston.pm meeting

[Jim Bacon]

I think that critiques of documentation are as important as those of style and maintainability. That also includes level of comments. What comments could be included to clarify logic as well and comments that just muddy the waters.

Jim

> On May 7, 2017, at 7:32 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/