Re:CodeFlow: Improving the Code Review Process at Microsoft ...
by premun on Thursday February 07, 2019 @07:42AM
(#19104843)
I have worked for both and prefer CodeFlow, my more detailed comment is above.
Re:CodeFlow: Improving the Code Review Process at Microsoft ...
by goobar on Thursday February 07, 2019 @02:35AM
(#19103675)
I see this arrogance inside Google lots.
The way we do things is the right way because that's what we do. Any disagreement is ignorance.
Re:CodeFlow: Improving the Code Review Process at Microsoft ...
by m0zg on Thursday February 07, 2019 @02:28AM
(#19103651)
>> You said no, Critique is better!
Nope, I did not. I just said that people really want Critique, which they do. Even CodeFlow itself is evidence of that.
Re:CodeFlow: Improving the Code Review Process at Microsoft ...
by forrestthewoods on Thursday February 07, 2019 @02:51AM
(#19103733)
Maybe what I really want is CodeFlow. Maybe Critique is evidence that I need CodeFlow in my life! It could be that you want CodeFlow in your life, you just don't know it yet.
Re:CodeFlow: Improving the Code Review Process at Microsoft ...
by m0zg on Thursday February 07, 2019 @03:01AM
(#19103769)
Seeing that I haven't willingly used Windows in the last decade and wrote zero code for it, I highly doubt it. I would, however, pay for Critique+Blaze+Forge if Google offered it on Google Cloud. It's an incredible force multiplier.
Lots of people have worked for both Google and Microsoft. The article said CodeFlow was good. You said no, Critique is better! But I guess you don’t actually know one way or the other.
Which is too bad. Because it’d be great to hear thoughts from people who’ve tried both.