[m-rev.] Re: for review: user-friendly representation of streams

[Fergus Henderson]

On 25-Sep-2002, Zoltan Somogyi <zs at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> First, I could in theory tease apart the three different changes below,
> but I don't think that would be very productive.

Separating such changes makes them *much*, *MUCH*, easier to review.

The easier they are to review, the better quality reviews you are
likely to get.

Good code reviews often catch problems at a point in the development
cycle when they are relatively easy to fix.  If there are problems that
are only discovered later, they may take many hours to find and analyze.

An important part of code review is making sure that the change does
all that is needed to implement the desired functionality.  It is
very hard to do this if there are three pieces of functionality being
added at the same time, and the diff is 5000 lines long.  It's very
difficult to review 5000 lines of change in a single sitting.
If you can't review a change in a single setting

If you really don't want to split the change up, then *I* will split it
up, since it will be easier for me to split it up and review the parts
than trying to review it all at once.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------