Without crowd control the reviewer's views and the code author's intent are at odds, so a reviewer imposing their own logic can force repeated rewrites of code whose core functionality is already sound; a code review should instead focus on functionality and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.
Source quote, verbatim
Instead, a code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.
From
Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024), Single Points of Failure, p. 35 https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632 · source PDF
Cite as
Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632
Holds when
applies to legacy code review processes lacking crowd control
extendskaal:claim:3995709-017 A code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and da...
extendskaal:claim:4734750-012 A code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and da...
Verify
The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 972ccebf0c06ac1767a9e443bb95942b7670e806a63c25ee817c368a64c8eca8. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer. Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/760e936c9192c522...json Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-022.md | sha256sum