4 ms·

I mostly agree, with one exception: the author prefers "sucessfully -> successfully" to "You misspelled ‘successfully.’". We have a lot of these kinds of comme

I mostly agree, with one exception: the author prefers "sucessfully -> successfully" to "You misspelled ‘successfully.’". We have a lot of these kinds of comments at work and I find both equally frustrating. I wish reviewers would just make those simple changes themselves, it's almost the same amount of effort as writing a comment.

throwanem 9y ago
I've never been in a culture where reviewers add commits to a topic branch they're reviewing! If I may, what have you found the pros and cons to be, compared to what I guess might be the more usual style?
- mrgriffin 9y ago
  We're pretty conservative with the things we add, it's 95% correcting comments/documentation and the other 5% minor (behavior-preserving) transformations. We work in Python, so those transformations are things like using `collections.defaultdict` instead of a plain dictionary where it makes sense etc etc.
Bahamut 9y ago
So you want reviewers to drop what they’re doing and take the time to pull in your changes to fix the typo, break up commit history by adding their change, instead of you fixing the mistake when it’s found, especially if it’s newly introduced? That’s pretty inconsiderate/lazy. Don’t be that teammate please.
- dmoy 9y ago
  Where I work the reviewer can seamlessly make a (suggested) edit to the change request which the author can accept with a single button click. So I guess it depends on the toolchain you have available, might be that GP has better tools than what you're used to. (To be clear, on submit the edit you make would appear as though author had did it themselves, so it doesn't polluted commit log at all)
  - watwut 9y ago
    What tool do you use? That feature sounds cool.
    - dmoy 9y ago
      It is an internal only tool, idk of a public equivalent. Indeed a cool feature.
- mrgriffin 9y ago
  Similar to dmoy our code review workflow supports making a (small) change while reviewing. We use GitHub PRs, and the edit function combined with choosing a commit message like "!fixup <original commit message>" and `git rebase --autosquash` (or `git merge --squash` when merging the PR) works well. It's funny that you mention not wanting people to drop what they're doing as IMO that's one of the advantages of the approach I'm describing. The reviewer is already in the code, whereas the person being reviewed has often moved on to something else.
giancarlostoro 9y ago
I mean my IDE tells me if I spelled something wrong usually, and I try to use similar tooling to everyone else I'm working with, so this specific case might be rare in some shops. You would have to completely ignore the feedback your IDE gives you about your code, at which point you might have bigger issues at your code review if you don't even listen to some of the minor suggestions of your IDE.
- dllthomas 9y ago
  Or your misspelling might have produced a different, correctly spelled word.

throwanem 9y ago

I've never been in a culture where reviewers add commits to a topic branch they're reviewing! If I may, what have you found the pros and cons to be, compared to what I guess might be the more usual style?

mrgriffin 9y ago
We're pretty conservative with the things we add, it's 95% correcting comments/documentation and the other 5% minor (behavior-preserving) transformations. We work in Python, so those transformations are things like using `collections.defaultdict` instead of a plain dictionary where it makes sense etc etc.

Bahamut 9y ago

So you want reviewers to drop what they’re doing and take the time to pull in your changes to fix the typo, break up commit history by adding their change, instead of you fixing the mistake when it’s found, especially if it’s newly introduced? That’s pretty inconsiderate/lazy. Don’t be that teammate please.

dmoy 9y ago
Where I work the reviewer can seamlessly make a (suggested) edit to the change request which the author can accept with a single button click. So I guess it depends on the toolchain you have available, might be that GP has better tools than what you're used to. (To be clear, on submit the edit you make would appear as though author had did it themselves, so it doesn't polluted commit log at all)
- watwut 9y ago
  What tool do you use? That feature sounds cool.
  - dmoy 9y ago
    It is an internal only tool, idk of a public equivalent. Indeed a cool feature.
mrgriffin 9y ago
Similar to dmoy our code review workflow supports making a (small) change while reviewing. We use GitHub PRs, and the edit function combined with choosing a commit message like "!fixup <original commit message>" and `git rebase --autosquash` (or `git merge --squash` when merging the PR) works well. It's funny that you mention not wanting people to drop what they're doing as IMO that's one of the advantages of the approach I'm describing. The reviewer is already in the code, whereas the person being reviewed has often moved on to something else.

giancarlostoro 9y ago

I mean my IDE tells me if I spelled something wrong usually, and I try to use similar tooling to everyone else I'm working with, so this specific case might be rare in some shops. You would have to completely ignore the feedback your IDE gives you about your code, at which point you might have bigger issues at your code review if you don't even listen to some of the minor suggestions of your IDE.

dllthomas 9y ago
Or your misspelling might have produced a different, correctly spelled word.