News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:CodeFlow: Improving the Code Review Process at Microsoft ... by forrestthewoods on Thursday February 07, 2019 @01:09AM (#19103387)
> How would I know, CodeFlow is internal to Microsoft.

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.

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.