develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2021

Re: the future of commit bits

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Yuki Kimoto
February 2, 2021 01:38
Re: the future of commit bits
Message ID:
> I don't think we have the resources to do deep reviews.

I agree with this.

2021年1月18日(月) 21:21 Dave Mitchell <>:

> I think one big issue with code review is shallow versus deep review.
> It's fairly easy to look over a commit and criticise a poor commit
> message, point out that there aren't any tests included, spot typos, etc.
> What's really hard for a non-trivial PR is being able to say with
> confidence whether that change is (a) correct and (b) best.
> Really the only way to be able to perform a good deep review is for a
> reviewer to independently attempt to fix the same issue. This forces them
> to understand how the existing code works, and what might be good ways to
> fix it.
> So for example Karl might post some big Unicode fix, and for me to be able
> to review it properly might take me as much if not more time than Karl
> took.
> I don't think we have the resources to do deep reviews.
> I think shallow reviews of committer changes already get done by people
> who have a habit of regularly running an eye over recent commits to
> understand what's going on.
> Shallow reviews of non-committer PRs should of course be carried out. And
> if they're in a specialised area (e.g. regexes) then there would be an
> expectation that an expert in that area would carry out a review somewhere
> in between shallow and deep.
> So what I think I'm saying is that there isn't much point in requiring
> approval from another committer for a PR/commit by a committer, and I'm
> not sure there's need for 2 reviewers for a non-committer PR.
> --
> You're only as old as you look.

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About