[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
- From: "Lakshmi P Shanmugam" <lshanmug@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 06:35:35 +0000
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Importance: Normal
Hi Dani, Mickael,
I didn't say that code-review is not required. I actually mentioned that code-review is good, but reviewing mass changes is very time consuming. So, the author should take responsibility of manually verifying the changes and not depend on the reviewer to do this. Reviewer will code-review the whole patch if required or review random samples (as Dani mentioned).
Manual verification to be done by the author :
1. Manually verify that all the changes in the gerrit patch are intended changes.
2. Test the affected code and not rely only on gerrit. This is required from SWT POV as the gerrit only runs the JUnit tests for Linux, even if the code changes are for Windows or Mac. So, for SWT changes, the JUnit tests should be run on the affected platforms.
Thanks & Regards,
Lakshmi P Shanmugam,
Eclipse Platform Co-lead,
India Software Lab, Bangalore
----- Original message -----
From: Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [eclipse-pmc] Review of mass changes
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2019 6:51 PM
> The onus should really be on the author to manually verify the mass changes.
I disagree with that, The author often does his best but might overlook the obvious. As mentioned, it is OK if only random samples are reviewed.
I also somehow disagree with that. While the author *must* manually verify the change, it's too easy for the author to miss something after a long work they've done. Being too involved and confident into something make usually people less careful and more likely to make small mistakes, that's somehow in human nature. Another external fresh pair of eyeballs on the change will see things that author can overlook.
In a perfect world, another review would be mandatory for every change. Some reference studies about software quality have measured the code review is almost always profitable in the sense that it detects a lot of bugs for a cheaper price/time than just skipping the review, shipping the bugs, and spending more time troubleshooting them later.