There's a useful blog post on code review at Mozilla by Mozilla developer David 
Humphrey on his blog: <http://vocamus.net/dave/?p=1569>. 

I like his breakdown of different types of code reviews. It seems like at 
Mozilla there is a lot of room for the patch submitter to indicate to reviewers 
what sort of review is needed for a particular patch, ranging from requests for 
manual testing and careful scrutiny all the way to what Humphrey calls 
"catechism reviews", in which the committer uses a review request to announce 
her intent and solicit a basic sanity-check.

Unofficially such reviews do not exist at the WMF because we are all infallibly 
meticulous and diligent about testing every branch of every code change. But 
unofficially they do, of course. It'd be nice if such reviews were formally 
sanctioned (with whatever qualifications). I'm interested to hear other 
people's thoughts.

--
Ori Livneh



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to