Re:Tesla engineers were on-site to evaluate the Twitter staf...
by x86x87 on Saturday October 29, 2022 @09:58PM
(#33390185)
That's shifting the goalposts quite a bit. You're looking for process, you are also asking for pointers from the people working on the project. Throwing out numbers like 500kloc is completely unnecessary as you're not going to look at them unless in cases where you're spotchecking (and you won't know where to look without someone pointing it out to you)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Tesla engineers were on-site to evaluate the Twitter staf...
by grogenaut on Saturday October 29, 2022 @10:21PM
(#33390368)
I don't feel I'm moving the goal posts. I'm relating what I did with numbers. Others may have assumed my goals.
My goal was to reduce the risks that the acquiring company felt were the biggest. I did that in 8 hours. Then we focused on specific risks previously identified in the review. That usually took the form of asking the selling company to explain, not for me to read more code. Usually the answers clarify the concerns, or admit them.
Re:Tesla engineers were on-site to evaluate the Twitter staf...
by chris_wot on Sunday October 30, 2022 @06:45AM
(#33393226)
That's not really code review though, I'd argue. The report was that they wanted their code printed on paper, and to review it. That seems very... specific to the code itself. Not the same as reviewing code coverage, documentation and Ops specific workflows.
Of course, those things are absolutely vital, and must be long and tedious work, and I give you kudos for having these skills :-)