Open Source Code Reviews? 3
Wordman asks: "The Slashdot article on making software suck less got me wondering about how open source projects make use of the (by far) best tool for reducing software suckage: peer code reviews. Normally, a project team is assigned a fellow programmer's code to look over and critique; however, with open source projects, the 'team' is not as cohesive and usually scattered geographically. Additionally, most open source projects do not have a 'project manager' the way a company would. So, what experiences have you had with code reviews in an open source project? What was the process? Did it work? If it didn't, what went wrong? How would you go about starting a code review process in an open source project?"
I see little code review (Score:1)
But the problem is simply that in all of the projects there is so much to do and so few people / so few hours to do it in, that unfortunately noone takes the time to look at code that others have commited. You only look when you build a new feature on top of someone elses code. Of course, if you don't know something or are unsure how you should implement a new feature, you can always ask and normally you will get an answer and there are many experienced and high quality C++ coders in the projects.
POV (Score:1)
So, what experiences have you had with code reviews in an open source project? What was the process? Did it work? If it didn't, what went wrong? How would you go about starting a code review process in an open source project?"
Well thankfully I'm not a coder (although I try and succeed and actually succeed when I need something for myself) but here is my take on certain issues.
I think the overall Open Source arena is the best thing to happen in computerland, however I also see a lack of focus, and direction when it comes to Open Source. Too many great programmers with kick ass ideas, but no true skills from many to follow up on those ideas, and directions.
One of the things that benefit "profiting corporations" is, their business needs to survive on it which is why they pay people to produce, whereas in the Open Source arena, many do it for the love of it, insight, hobby, etc., but there is nothing that is obligating anyone to do anything.
Using SourceForge as an example, its a nice idea, but its horrendous as all hell looking for anything, and provided you find something neat, chances are many of the ideas are often in limbo. Undeveloped for any reason, programmers too busy, they don't care, etc. These instances I guess is what many corporations use to attack the ideaology of the Open Source arena. "It will fail because no one can come to terms, follow up, etc." and sometimes you have to look at it from their perspective in order to understand why commercialism will always outperform (martket wise) Open Source.
Another quirk is the lack of assistance surrounding Open Source projects, for instance, many know their projects will likely (85%) of the times be a free project, so many don't think about executing a plan on assisting those who end up using their software, which is another reason corps. have the upper hand. Maybe if some got together with non geek marketing people, they could document things in better fashion and provide assistance to companies at a set price, which I'm sure would give programmers more incentive to do better work, and at least finish some of it for a change.
But like I said I'm not a programmer
Ghost in the Shell" [antioffline.com]
CVS Hooks (Score:2)
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~