Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda!collin
From: collin@hpindda.HP.COM (Collin Park)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: code reviews
Message-ID: <6620004@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: 21 Jun 89 23:10:03 GMT
References: <12047@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 32

-- i'm trying to resist the temptation to enter the debate of whether
   code reviews are Good Things or not...

Umm, one thing that I seems to be in the literature that is often
under-emphasized (in my personal experience) is the follow-up meeting.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here.  When a defect (de marco has
taught me not to say "bug") is found during a review, there are
(at least?) 2 approaches that can be taken:

1. Discuss general ways to fix the defect -- consider various approaches,
   pros & cons, etc.  This has the advantage of being more educational
   to the reviewee but has the risk of causing the entire meeting to
   go down a "rat hole."  A skilled facilitator is essential to prevent
   this.  (Actually, a skilled facilitator is essential regardless of
   whether you do [1] or [2].)

2. Once the defect is identified, cut off discussion and leave it to the
   engineer to fix it offline.

Whether you do [1] or [2], though, a follow-up meeting is very important
("essential"?) to verify that the defects did in fact get fixed without
introducing new ones.  


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, opinions expressed above are my
own and do not explicitly reflect those of the Hewlett-Packard Company
or any other person or entity.

collin park			Hewlett-Packard Company
collin%hpda@hplabs.hp.com	19420 Homestead Road -- MS 43LT
				Cupertino, CA  95014  USA