RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 7.0 RC4 Candidate Available

[Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1
I think code reviews are very valuable.
We'll have to be prepared to put in the time though.
I think it pays off in the end.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 3:00 PM
> To: CDT General developers list.; CDT General developers list.
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 7.0 RC4 Candidate Available
> 
> We probably should at all stages, IMO. Quality over quantity. The 
> high level of scrutiny in the DSF and DSF-GDB plugins has produced 
> high quality, highly-understandable code, and I have no doubt we are 
> getting things done right the first time more often because of it. I 
> keep hearing about parts of CDT that are very hard to decipher and 
> maintain. That sort of situation can only come about because 
> developers commit features and enhancements without any critical 
> oversight. I for one would like to hear people diving into our 
> codebase rave about how great it is. I'm always impressed when I look 
> at platform code. It's clean, it's well thought out, and it's well 
> documented. That's no surprise; every change is carefully reviewed. I 
> don't known why we're not holding ourselves to the same standards.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> At 01:34 PM 6/4/2010, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> >People on the commercial side of my life have been asking about 
> >whether we do code reviews and such. We probably should, at least at 
> >this stage of the cycle.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>