Posted by jordojuice on June 14, 2011 at 11:18am
Recently, I've been periodically finding moments in the project review process in which I feel that it would be best to get a second opinion. And to my knowledge there was no specific place to turn (IRC is not so reliable with few people in the group). So, I thought it would be great to have a discussion for getting second opinions from more experienced reviewers or even in cases where a question requires specific expertise. This may even further promote and encourage less skilled reviewers as they will have a place to turn when they feel overwhelmed. Perhaps it should even be something that is visible, as well.
Comments
Should we have a tag or
Should we have a tag or something in this group for second opinions? Reviewers could just post a discussion asking for a second opinion, and have questions answered. I think it is better to keep all discussion in the associated issue, and not post them here, but I just don't know that there is a good way of reaching out to everyone.
Aye maybe a tag could be a
Aye maybe a tag could be a good option. I agree that discussion certainly needs to be in the application issue (for the same reason I am not a fan of posting in the sandbox issue queue) but there's no reliable way to reach out through that method yet. I think this would be a great thing to work out and add to the "How to review project applications" documentation for new reviewers.
.
My only concern would be the possibility of two reviewers having a too-public disagreement inside the application issue thread (as I witnessed shortly after joining this group ... the result was frustration for both reviewers AND the applicant).
I see two situations where a second opinion may be useful. 1) When a reviewer comes up against a particularily aggressive or stubborn applicant, and 2) When a reviewer honestly doesn't know how to respond to a particular tricky issue.
I think in either case, having a place within the g.d.o group where reviewers can post a link to the application in question is a great idea. If the resolution is fairly clear, and the 'second opinion' matches that of the first reviewer, then posting directly to the application makes perfect sense.
However, if the second opinion differs significantly from the first, or there really hasn't been a precedent set on the issue, I'd recommend that the discussion occur within the g.d.o group instead. Not only does this keep the debate out of the 'public space' while discussing a resolution ... and avoiding any public misunderstandings or hard feelings which might result ... it also provides us a common archive of historical discussions within the group, which can be referenced the next time a similar issue might arise. This also helps build consistency between reviewers (and reviews) over time.
Great point
Noted
Hook documentation standards
I've been noticing that there is some confusion on the standards for hook comments. As we all know, the standards changed from
Implementation of hook().toImplements hook().in D7. Does this now also apply to D6 modules? Meaning, are they required to use the new documentation format as well? I've seen both claims made in the queue and would just like some clarification on this from a more knowledgable source than myself.Hi, Since there is still this
Hi,
Since there is still this confusion, I'd like a clarification too.
A complicated answer
These seem to be the two relevant issues on the change in documentation standard:
http://drupal.org/node/472642
http://drupal.org/node/487802
There's no mention of a back port to D6 there, but it's also pretty clear the new documentation is better everywhere, not specific to D7, nor even specific to Drupal. My impression is it wasn't back ported because of documentation freeze in core. That's obviously not an issue in contrib. That said, few contrib module maintainers have applied the new standard to D6 versions.
With all of that in mind, I think we should be suggesting "Implements" where there is no documentation in D6, suggesting the newer format for D7 code still using "Implementation of," but not "correcting" it (not mentioning it at all) for D6 code that already says "Implementation of." In short, let's follow what happened in core.
Sounds good to me :)
Sounds good to me :)
Great! Thanks sreynen
Great! Thanks sreynen
Since I want a second
Since I want a second opinion, did we decide how to handle this? Should we make a new thread in the Code Review group for each request for a second opinion?
New thread is a lot of
New thread is a lot of e-mails/nodes.
I'd prefer a single thread (maybe per month) or maybe a wiki?
knaddison blog | Morris Animal Foundation
Created
New wiki page created at http://groups.drupal.org/node/157669, and added to the front page menus.
While I threw up a process asking for new comments on that page, I think perhaps the 'edit the wiki page' approach might be more appropriate to cut down on group spam ... feel free to edit the process as desired.