New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Standardizing reviews #15

Open
ldusan84 opened this Issue Aug 9, 2014 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@ldusan84

ldusan84 commented Aug 9, 2014

Today I've seen a couple of reviews, registered and looked at the review posting process. I have a few ideas on how this can be improved.

I think that for start all reviews should be standardized. This could be done with defining some sections that would appear on every review. I think that sections on Marius's reviews are a good example. So every review would have What it does, How it does, Installation and so on.

There won't be much people that would bother with html formatting or studying a guide on how to write a good review. I think that a clear structure should be provided which means a few predefined text areas and a few predefined checkboxes, that way anyone can easily write a review.

There should be checkboxes that indicate if that particular module follows common coding practices. Something like Joel Test Score on Stack Careers (for example http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs/62059/senior-software-engineer-tapshield?a=52vYG4lOyA).

This way reviews will also be much easier to read and more understandable to people that are not developers.

These are just some general ideas, we can discuss in greater details if you want.

@oreales

This comment has been minimized.

oreales commented Aug 10, 2014

+1 but leaving freedom to reviewers. I will see good a common "standard" format for all reviews with some key points mandatory to fills up in a review, so "fast reading" will works, but also will leave space to "comments" or whatever where a reviewer has the freedom of writing what it feels about the extensión.

@tim-bezhashvyly

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

tim-bezhashvyly commented Aug 10, 2014

@ldusan84 you proposition definitely makes sense. I propose the following sections:

  • Functionality
  • Concept
  • Code Quality
  • Installation / Uninstallation (optional)
  • Support (optional)
  • Conclusion

@oreales which do you think should be the title of the "freedom" section?

@oreales

This comment has been minimized.

oreales commented Aug 11, 2014

some suggestions:

  • opinion
    • reviewer opinion
    • resume
    • conclusion
@tim-bezhashvyly

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

tim-bezhashvyly commented Aug 11, 2014

We already have "Conclusion". Might be enough?

@oreales

This comment has been minimized.

oreales commented Aug 11, 2014

if it is ok to you it is ok to me ;-)

@ldusan84

This comment has been minimized.

ldusan84 commented Aug 11, 2014

@tim-bezhashvyly I agree with your proposal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment