Timeline for How should code reviews be carried out?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2011 at 16:33 | comment | added | Péter Török | @Graviton, we had specific review tasks in the backlog to ensure that it doesn't get forgotten. As long as I was in the team, it worked well, but that was only 6 months. I have no detailed info on the afterlife of the project. | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 15:59 | comment | added | Graviton | He did the review on his own, fixed trivial issues and sent the list of nontrivial issues back to the author to be fixed. I find this process a bit too monotonous and tedious; I afraid that developers will stop following it after some time ( when the pressure from managers ceases) | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 11:27 | comment | added | Péter Török | @Graviton, we were consistent (review every week, sometimes twice a week) but not scalable. I added some more details on this. I agree it can't realistically work in most real-life projects, that's why I suggest a "hybrid" alternative in my last paragraph. | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 11:21 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 23 characters in body; added 318 characters in body |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 11:18 | comment | added | Graviton | I seriously can't imagine how you can do Formal Code Review as described above in a consistent, scalable manner. You may be able to do it sporadically, when you feel like it, or you may be able to do it if your team is small and write very few code, but you definitely can't do it if you are under tight deadline or if your team is consisting of 5 developers and above. I think. | |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 10:24 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 630 characters in body |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 10:17 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 418 characters in body |
| Feb 18, 2011 at 10:05 | history | answered | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 2.5 |