Re: [Gzz] Pegboard

[Tuomas Lukka]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 10:51:02AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On 20020826T080712+0300, Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > I think that would be too much at this point. You should never take more
> > bureucracy than you absolutely need. 
> 
> (Do you know how much I hate that word?  It's a "murinasana", it does
> not mean anything.)

Is "process" better?

> Code inspections are an integral part of any software engineering process.
> Most well-managed projects in the industry inspect *all* prospective
> commits, not just bug fixes.  I'm told it has a tremendous effect on
> product quality.

Yes, and I'm all for code inspections.

I'm not at the moment for doing code inspections by mailing the list
because it would be too heavy a process at the moment. 

But it's good to remember: at the later stages of the alpha process
we might want to start using it.  Once we start
having problems related to not doing code inspection, we'll start 
doing it.

At the moment, I haven't seen them; we have had problems related to
every "stakeholder" understanding and agreeing on the intentions and overall
shape of the changes, and that's why we now have the pegboard.

Also, you have to be careful not to introduce too much process in one go.
Very little by little, getting really comfortable with the previous
ideas first.

> > Besides, we have gzz-commits mailing list.
> 
> It's not an inspection list.  Or how many times have you examined the
> diffs of the commits?

Quite commonly. Especially when they hit one of the more stabilized APIs.
And I do read random classes every once in a while.

        Tuomas