For what it is worth, I agree with Abdel.
Of course, a code review is always good, but testing is better, and
coding & bug-fixing is best.
It seems people have the priorities wrong. I think you need to rank
efforts based on how much it brings thing forward per time unit, because
LyX is chronically resource starved.
Abdel tested his code, and is confident in it. He has proven his skills
many times. He makes mistake, just like everyone else. This has never
stopped LyX from progressing, and will not now.
The effort of producing an understandable patch series that will ease
the review costs so much that other developers with no experience with
that code can understand it, is just not worth it. The effort is much
better spent testing the result thoroughly, report and fix bugs, and
maybe add a bunch of comments in the header files.
In the last 5 years of LyX, at most 50% of the code was understood by
more than one person. It's ridiculous to think that quality and
maintainability is only dependent on how many people understand the code
or how well it was reviewed.
Quality and maintainability is primarily dependent on these things:
1) The availability of competent developers for productive work.
2) The skill level of the developer behind it.
3) How much the code was tested.
Given X minutes of time, doing a code review will reduces factor 1 and
3, while it might improve 2. If you have a competent developer, the
likelihood that the skill level will improve is smaller. So it's not
worth it in that case. It's much better to ask a competent developer to
test it systematically, including all edge cases.
Regards,
Asger
