Notices by samir, talks too much (samir@mastodon.functional.computer), page 2

@aral Don’t know what the hell I was thinking.

You know it's web scale when your tarball is base64-encoded and embedded in a JSON string.

No, I will not subscribe to your mailing list. Get an RSS/Atom feed.

@BethanyBlack As far as I can tell, it’s a very British thing. Having a hard life is some kind of moral high ground.

I guess it probably goes hand-in-hand with the extreme self-deprecation.

I never realised it until I left. I do not miss it.

(I’m guessing the responder you saw was British. Just a hunch.)

“I don’t want to use Hey because DHH is a bellend…”

*nods*

“… so I’m sticking with Gmail.”

*head explodes*

@ScribblingOn I remember my therapist telling me: “They’re called ‘feelings’ because you feel them in your body. If it’s in your mind it’s called a ‘thought’.” Then they proceeded to ask me where I was feeling the anxiety, exactly.

Mind very blown.

Ah, screenshots of a Google spreadsheet, posted into Slack. I must be in the future.

@FuchsiaShock FWIW when I imagine someone saying "it'll not", they're doing it in a Yorkshire* accent.

* or whatever facsimile of a Yorkshire accent my brain has picked up from 90s TV

Well, this is beautiful. Scroll up.

https://neal.fun/space-elevator/

Via @adactio.

@silverwizard Also, can I assume you don’t have any kind of manual testing phase, then?

@silverwizard That’s interesting. Can you define “quality” in this case?

Is there a reason why you prefer manual review to automated review here?

@silverwizard I’m explaining my experiences, which of course may not be your experiences.

I think I agree with you, but I’m not sure why the review needs to be blocking in that case.

@silverwizard Can you explain the contradiction?

@silverwizard I have worked in teams that wrote very high-quality software without blocking code review.

My experience has been that many people, when faced with blocking code review, simply make so many changes at once that the reviewer takes a cursory glance and says, “I guess it’s fine”.

I agree with you that what you meant to do isn’t tested. I’m a big fan of acceptance tests (which are typically slow), and I would very much prefer if those were still reviewed.

Been thinking about code review as a bottleneck.

What if we didn’t review production code or unit (fast) tests, BUT:

* all code must be fully tested
* all non-unit (slow) tests must be reviewed, and written before the implementation
* any exceptions to the above (basically, untested code) need full review

You can still review the rest, just not as a blocker.

What do you think? Would this work? Would it encourage good quality software?

@evan Let it be known that I do not sleep 7 hours out of choice. I'd love to get 9 daily.