4 ms·
I find this sort of process useful, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons. Picking apart changesets after the face helps me find issues that are likely t
by danielheath 5y ago
I find this sort of process useful, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons.
Picking apart changesets after the face helps me find issues that are likely to crop up in review, because I am looking at a patch.
It also helps me separate contentious changes from obviously correct ones, which means the clearly good stuff isn’t held up waiting for approval on the complex.
- morpheos137 5y agoA human edit goes some way to limiting the set of controversial changes – it means there is a small human oversight that we can read through to determine. All those are valuable, and it’s only now starting to get the sort of support that would allow me to say “No, none of those changes are contentious, and no, you can approve it.”. In the absence of that, some changes are contentious enough that I can’t approve it. We can and should argue about the edge cases (especially with some form of non-subjective metrics for controversiality). However, given we are looking to be useful at work, I think the anti-semantic review process is what will get us there. From a technical POV, the major issues would be to introduce syntactic analysis of the text, to support dictionary. I think that is probably fine, given that it won’t happen anyway, and I suspect that the direction of that work will help with parsing and analysis. Of course, we could move past the scope of the syntax.