Code review tool company SmartBear published an interesting study [1] of
the effectiveness of code reviews at Cisco. (They used SmartBear's
tools, of course.) Mozillian Mike Conley reviewed SmartBear's study on
his blog [2].
The results are interesting and actionable. Some highlights:
* Review fewer than 200-400 lines of code at a time.
* Spend no more than 60-90 minutes per review session.
* Authors should pre-review their own code before submitting a review
request and add explanations and questions to guide reviewers.
chris
[1]
http://smartbear.com/SmartBear/media/pdfs/WP-CC-11-Best-Practices-of-Peer-Code-Review.pdf
[2]
http://mikeconley.ca/blog/2009/09/14/smart-bear-cisco-and-the-largest-study-on-code-review-ever/
On 4/11/14, 1:29 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I came across the following articles on source control and code review:
*
https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/recommendations_on_revision_control/
*
https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/writing_reviewable_code/
*
https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabflavor/article/recommendations_on_branching/
I think everyone working on Firefox should take the time to read them as
they prescribe what I perceive to be a very rational set of best
practices for working with large and complex code bases.
The articles were written by a (now former) Facebooker and the
recommendations are significantly influenced by Facebook's experiences.
They have many of the same problems we do (size and scale of code base,
hundreds of developers, etc). Some of the pieces on feature development
don't translate easily, but most of the content is relevant.
I would be thrilled if we started adopting some of the recommendations
such as more descriptive commit messages and many, smaller commits over
fewer, complex commits.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
