Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Christopher Yeoh <cbkyeoh at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Robert Collins <
> robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>
>> This may interest data-driven types here.
>>
>>
>> https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/11-proven-practices-for-peer-review/
>>
>> Note specifically the citation of 200-400 lines as the knee of the review
>> effectiveness curve: that's lower than I thought - I thought 200 was
>> clearly fine - but no.
>>
>>
> Very interesting article. One other point which I think is pretty relevant
> is point 4 about getting authors to annotate the code better (and for those
> who haven't read it, they don't mean comments in the code but separately)
> because it results in the authors picking up more bugs before they even
> submit the code.
>
> So I wonder if its worth asking people to write more detailed commit logs
> which include some reasoning about why some of the more complex changes
> were done in a certain way and not just what is implemented or fixed. As it
> is many of the commit messages are often very succinct so I think it would
> help on the review efficiency side too.
>
>
Good commit messages are important, but I wonder if a more direct approach
is for submitters to put review notes for their patches directly in gerrit.
That allows annotation to be directly in place, without the burden of
over-commenting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130815/bbf26b12/attachment.html>