[WF-Infra] Seperate Code Review List?
speedbump0619 at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 30 19:43:57 PST 2001
>From: Lakin Wecker <nikal at shaw.ca>
>Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:31:43 -0700
>On October 30, 2001 15:29 pm, you wrote:
> > Currently Code Review occurs on the WF-Server list. I would think it
> > would be better to give Code Reviewing it's own list, many people on the
> > Server list aren't interested in the Code review stuff but like to keep
> > up to date on other server discussions such as Architecture and stuff.
>The code review happening on The server list is stricly server related.
>Specifically for stage, hence the reason that we use server at . I'm not
>interested in alot of the other reviews. which brings me to believe this:
>IMHO, either way you look at it people will be receiving reviews they don't
>A) we leave it as it is, and people such as yourself receive them
>B) we change to a Code Review list, and people such as myself will have to
>subscribe to the Code review list, and if another code review say.. for ...
>uclient goes on in that list, then I'm stuck getting those mails.
>So from my point of view it's 6 to one, half a dozen the other.
>Just voicing my humble opinion.
I have mixed feelings about this. A lot of the review discissions are very
tedious, and unimportant to non-coders (or even coders not involved in that
area of development). I have been concerned about this, primarilly because
a large number of subscribers don't read the reviews at all.
There are a lot more people on the server mailing list than there would be
on a code review list, so from that perspective they should probably be
separated. On the other hand, how many of the lurkers out there will join a
review group, whereas putting such review in a more focused area seems more
likely, to me, to get people involved.
Also, it is very likely that code reviews will carry over into architecture
discussions. When this happens on a sparate list not everyone has the
chance to participate.
I guess in a perfect world, I would have reviews announced in the target
groups and then carried out in a public, but separate area. The reviewers
should be consientious about moving non-review discussions to a different
channel where they can be taken up by the *whole* of the interested
group(s). Do we have the discipline to do this?
-Scott Tillman aka SpeedBump
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
More information about the Infra