We've been using it quite successfully for a month and a half now. Here are a few stats, as of right now, just from my team (a few other teams at Microsoft started using it as well):
Change lists reviewed: 217
Review iterations: 706
Files reviewed: 2386
Comments made: 2968
You can read more about the project here: http://1-800-magic.blogspot.com/2009/01/malevich-introduction.html, or get the code and documentation here: http://www.codeplex.com/Malevich.
2 comments:
Do you have some stats about seriouse problems discovered during code review? I need some arguments for my managment team to introduce code revirew practice. And amount of seriouse flaws found during code reviews will help me a lot.
In my experience, finding defects is actually the smaller part of the code review. Learning (finding out more about other people's code, different projects, technologies, or just coding tips and tricks) and teaching (best practices, opportunities of reusability that the reviewee might not have been aware of, nice tips and tricks of your own) in my experience were far more important.
Most of what I know about JavaScript for example came from reviewing other people's code, and other people reviwing mine.
Findamentally, code reviews are about improving the team first, and improving the product second.
You can read more about it here: http://1-800-magic.blogspot.com/2008/05/code-reviews-with-smile.html
Post a Comment