Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
From: Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jordan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.0 \(3226\))
Subject: Re: Low hanging fruit crew
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:55:02 -0500
References: <CAENxBwy0hLu96rkz6HRxS43Q--ccBTVr1C-+hTBTqwASF9Sm_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPbVhuObTSNxxgFsan_RfmzTyvS1OCAh6XYytmG73bApq0ag=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABsaHTPyN6ok7-92UHSq-7eJso4AnqzV3Atoz2RNxWL2e61tTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPbVhuNEEOsbQ5Vm_ZXUPJhqxpptZjzPj8Z-jeTQ3kgMNFji3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAENxBwwiKUDhCAL0DGn=wEZXve7QYa+Brwpw1yzhXW+K3HOSeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABxe4Tp4RQUyFC6Npgs=PWZ1ykGFKdMxRx=x=2a92i-=8Od8nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdd-zia6Ppkndj9otH7ktuhdWO2g5bcy-=ZKdWKaejbPYTXhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACUnPaBWLpqAmMn_3PFNs30jubd-OjHyfA=dU68NV9ecjY2cNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <CACUnPaBWLpqAmMn_3PFNs30jubd-OjHyfA=dU68NV9ecjY2cNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <EF2BBB05-C008-4C51-8346-DFCCCA4D5AD5@gmail.com>
archived-at: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:55:44 -0000

Unless the reviewer reviews the for content, then you don=E2=80=99t know =
if they do or not.

-Jeremiah

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Jonathan Haddad <jon@jonhaddad.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Shouldn't the tests test the code for correctness?
>=20
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:34 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Benjamin Lerer <
>> benjamin.lerer@datastax.com
>>> wrote:
>>=20
>>> Having the test passing does not mean that a patch is fine. Which is =
why
>> we
>>> have a review check list.
>>> I never put a patch available without having the tests passing but =
most
>> of
>>> my patches never pass on the first try. We always make mistakes no =
matter
>>> how hard we try.
>>> The reviewer job is to catch those mistakes by looking at the patch =
from
>>> another angle. Of course, sometime, both of them fail.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Agreed.  Review should not just be a "tests pass, +1" rubber stamp, =
but
>> actually checking the code for correctness.  The former is just =
process;
>> the latter actually catches problems that the tests would not.  (And =
this
>> is true even if the tests are much much better than ours.)
>>=20
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>> @spyced
>>=20