3 ms·
I like the idea, but I do have a nit to pick. Anonymizing the pull request title is kinda stupid. That bit reads to me like a cheap attempt to say "look how no
by dolni 5y ago
I like the idea, but I do have a nit to pick. Anonymizing the pull request title is kinda stupid.
That bit reads to me like a cheap attempt to say "look how not-racist we are." In fact, that "bias" will easily come through via comments in the code.
Succinctly summarizing work (i.e. via PR title) is an important communication skill and removing that from consideration is pointless virtue signaling.
I actually think the time constraint is a much bigger issue. Some people may be less efficient, but willing to work more. Time constraints bias against those types. Some types of engineers spend a long time thinking about a problem, then quickly produce a solution that is bulletproof. Those people would also be disadvantaged, I think.
- geoffmanning 5y agoI hadn't considered that choice, you're absolutely right! A well summarized commit, and even a potentially detailed body, is absolutely within the realms of what i would review, and trying to anonymize by pull request title seems silly at best.
- harrydehal 5y agoBeyond thorough commit messages and clearly-communicated PRs, don't forget the power of the project README. An engineer who takes the time to document a thorough README, with screenshots and diagrams, proper use of markdown, etc.? Wow. A thing of beauty.
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoAlso someone who is a complete wizard at TDD might not come across well if there is no test framework in place.