[X] I'm lazy and haven't gone looking for DW development process documentation yet, so I don't know enough about the process and what does or doesn't exist to contribute. :-)
If I *were* to do code reviews, I would mainly need a clear and detailed style guide. Especially so if the style guide isn't:
1. Use Perl::Critic and Perl::Tidy as per Damian Conway's Perl Best Practices book.
Judging by comments, that's not the style guide, presumably because the DW style is inherited from the LJ Style and that was created well before PBP (and Perl::Critic and Perl::Tidy) existed.
I suspect that considering whether or not to adopt that as the future style guide is something that should be discussed.
The usual practice with large existing codebases is to not go through and modify existing code - that's obviously too much pointless work. What is typically done is that if you need to edit a code file, the first step is to run Perl::Tidy and Perl::Critic, fix everything up, then get on with editing.
That automation alone catches a very large amount of "style" issues without requiring extra human review, which is a huge win. It leaves more time for humans to review things that humans are better at than computers, such as whether you should be using a different algorithm, or different approach to the problem, or whether the fix actually fixes the problem, etc.
no subject
If I *were* to do code reviews, I would mainly need a clear and detailed style guide. Especially so if the style guide isn't:
1. Use Perl::Critic and Perl::Tidy as per Damian Conway's Perl Best Practices book.
Judging by comments, that's not the style guide, presumably because the DW style is inherited from the LJ Style and that was created well before PBP (and Perl::Critic and Perl::Tidy) existed.
I suspect that considering whether or not to adopt that as the future style guide is something that should be discussed.
The usual practice with large existing codebases is to not go through and modify existing code - that's obviously too much pointless work. What is typically done is that if you need to edit a code file, the first step is to run Perl::Tidy and Perl::Critic, fix everything up, then get on with editing.
That automation alone catches a very large amount of "style" issues without requiring extra human review, which is a huge win. It leaves more time for humans to review things that humans are better at than computers, such as whether you should be using a different algorithm, or different approach to the problem, or whether the fix actually fixes the problem, etc.