3 ms·

Seems he had an approach to reviews worthy of emulation: "Code reviews from Bruce came in three flavours, "mild", "brucified" and "brucifiction", but they were

• jasone 6y ago
  Bruce's reviews were singularly masterful. He consistently condensed valuable layers of meaning into terse prose in a way that I have never experienced otherwise. As I would uncover these layers during repeated readings, I would develop the unshakable feeling that even as brilliant as Bruce was, he must have put great care and effort into his writing.
  • huslage 6y ago
    Do you know of a good example?
• loeg 6y ago
  I wouldn't suggest emulating it. His approach to review was to exhaustively detail every perceived bug in any particular file when someone touched that file. Preexisting issues unrelated to the change. Style warts unrelated to the change. Subjective opinions unrelated to the change. In his emails, every one of these was a "bug." There is some value in suggesting adjacent areas for future work, if authors have time and interest, but BDE went well beyond that. I think Bruce should be admired for his demonstrated desire to improve FreeBSD, and for his great attention to detail. But I would not like anyone to emulate his code review emails.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    If you're reviewing a block of code, you need to review the whole final version (not just the diff) or you risk missing context and interactions. If you're doing that, it's simpler to just review the whole thing and not filter out some parts just because you later notice that it predates the current patch. Although I would tend to hope that he doesn't treat pre-existing issues as blockers, I can certainly see why a person would take that approach if the goal is code quality.
    • loeg 6y ago
      Please do not rush to defend that which you are clearly unfamiliar with.
    • wejick 6y ago
      Touching other lines that are not related to intended changes will only obscure the situation.