always assume good faith

[Caio Tiago Oliveira]

On 06/23/2014 12:29 PM, Bráulio Bhavamitra wrote:
> What is testing? It is composed of automated tests (runned by the
> continous integration system, travis, gitlab CI) and users' tests, which
> we at EITA and blogoosfero do a lot.
> Reviewing for me is mainly about testing. I don't need pretty beautiful
> code, even after I have
> wrote http://noosfero.org/Development/PatchGuidelines completely for that!

http://blog.codinghorror.com/code-reviews-just-do-it/

<<<<<<<START
 - In a software-maintenance organization, 55 percent of one-line
maintenance changes were in error before code reviews were introduced.
After reviews were introduced, only 2 percent of the changes were in
error. When all changes were considered, 95 percent were correct the
first time after reviews were introduced. Before reviews were
introduced, under 20 percent were correct the first time.

 - In a group of 11 programs developed by the same group of people, the
first 5 were developed without reviews. The remaining 6 were developed
with reviews. After all the programs were released to production, the
first 5 had an average of 4.5 errors per 100 lines of code. The 6 that
had been inspected had an average of only 0.82 errors per 100. Reviews
cut the errors by over 80 percent.

 - The Aetna Insurance Company found 82 percent of the errors in a
program by using inspections and was able to decrease its development
resources by 20 percent.


 - IBM's 500,000 line Orbit project used 11 levels of inspections. It
was delivered early and had only about 1 percent of the errors that
would normally be expected.


 - A study of an organization at AT&T with more than 200 people reported
a 14 percent increase in productivity and a 90 percent decrease in
defects after the organization introduced reviews.


 - Jet Propulsion Laboratories estimates that it saves about $25,000 per
inspection by finding and fixing defects at an early stage.
END>>>>>>>>>


Take a look at least in the first four sections here:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/11-proven-practices-for-peer-review/


Automated testing is nice, but code review is another completely
unrelated thing. User testing is another nice thing, but it has nothing
to do with either automated testing or code review.
Any non-trivial program requires the three.