Re: Harvester status for Marcus Denker

[email protected] wrote:

>Daniel Vainsencher <[email protected]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Except for one thing - I haven't seen him post critical comments on any of the
>>code he's reviewed, and for anyone that's going to be able to get stuff
>>into the image where we all have to live with it, I want to know that he
>>can be point out where code is lacking.
>>    
>>

True, although I have to admit that I don't often have comments about 
the source code that I'm reviewing.  More often I have a comment about 
some aspect of what the change does. (such as my extra comments about 
the BoundsInHaloFix2 changeset)

I guess I usually just give the source code (diffs) a quick look-over to 
make sure that nothing jumps out at me as being ugly.  As far as judging 
source code, another factor is who wrote it... typically I will have a 
level of trust that somone like Ted Kaehler or Ned Konz won't need to 
have their code heavily scrutinized, but I may look more closely at the 
code of someone I don't know.  (However, external testing is another 
matter... that's equally important for all submissions.)

>Personally I have found that the
>code I have reviewed from others generally is good - but class comments
>and method comments tend to lack IMHO.
>
>I really want the quality of comments to be higher in the official
>classes. I would personally never let classes in without class comments.
>  
>

This is probably a good rule of thumb.  New classes should certainly 
include class comments before we approve them.  It's harder to have any 
simple rule about method comments... most methods do not need comments 
and should not have them, but some methods do need comments.

>>Except for the selection aspect, this is also important because posting
>>these public comments is the way knowledge is transmitted about good/bad
>>practice, and not just to the author of the specific code.
>>
>>What does everybody think?
>>    
>>
>
>I definitely think Marcus should be a Harvester - if he likes to be one.
>:-) 
>

I agree.  (Oh wait, I see he's already approving items anyway... :-) )

- Doug Way