6 ms·

Your comment calls "code review", the practice, "toxic". You go on to suggest that project maintainers "merge [the pull request] already and be done with it", s

Your comment calls "code review", the practice, "toxic". You go on to suggest that project maintainers "merge [the pull request] already and be done with it", suggesting that the normal review process not apply to this particular diff. You suggest that there should be a high bar for commenting on other people's code. Your comment sounds to me like it advocates lowering the bar for merging of external patches. That's a sure way to technical inferiority.

oelmekki 11y ago
> Your comment calls "code review", the practice, "toxic". You go on to suggest that project maintainers "merge [the pull request] already and be done with it" I'm with you until there :) > suggesting that the normal review process not apply to this particular diff If the normal review process is to feel diff should absolutely be commented, then yes, totally, applying it to such a small and casual diff makes what I feel is the ridiculousness of the process totally shine. Note that I'm not saying the diff should not be read. I'm not saying either we should not comment other people code if we feel there is a problem with it. I'm challenging the fact that this diff should have generated discussion, and call the fact that it had a problem. I don't think making teams more efficient lead to technical inferiority. And to me, the abuse of commenting code is all about inefficiency (regarding both productivity and sane relations between team members).
oelmekki 11y ago
> Your comment calls "code review", the practice, "toxic". Oh also, I think it should be clarified. I'm not advocating code review is a bad thing in itself and we should stop doing it. I think it could be done better, by internalizing the impact of a comment and measuring its cost before doing it. I see doing code review as better than not doing it (because you read other people code). I see being moderate when it comes to decide if something is worth commenting as better than the usual practice of considering comments are cheap and we can just comment anything.

oelmekki 11y ago

> Your comment calls "code review", the practice, "toxic". You go on to suggest that project maintainers "merge [the pull request] already and be done with it" I'm with you until there :) > suggesting that the normal review process not apply to this particular diff If the normal review process is to feel diff should absolutely be commented, then yes, totally, applying it to such a small and casual diff makes what I feel is the ridiculousness of the process totally shine. Note that I'm not saying the diff should not be read. I'm not saying either we should not comment other people code if we feel there is a problem with it. I'm challenging the fact that this diff should have generated discussion, and call the fact that it had a problem. I don't think making teams more efficient lead to technical inferiority. And to me, the abuse of commenting code is all about inefficiency (regarding both productivity and sane relations between team members).

oelmekki 11y ago

> Your comment calls "code review", the practice, "toxic". Oh also, I think it should be clarified. I'm not advocating code review is a bad thing in itself and we should stop doing it. I think it could be done better, by internalizing the impact of a comment and measuring its cost before doing it. I see doing code review as better than not doing it (because you read other people code). I see being moderate when it comes to decide if something is worth commenting as better than the usual practice of considering comments are cheap and we can just comment anything.