text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
**Anderson Queiroz:** That's a good one, right? Can I review a PR? |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** For sure, for sure. |
**Anderson Queiroz:** Would you trust that? |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** I might have used that in the past, yes... \[laughs\] |
**Anderson Queiroz:** Oh, that's nice. Okay. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** I'm a big fan of AI in coding. I think it's a fun combination. I'm very happy to automate myself out of a job. |
**Anderson Queiroz:** That's good. \[unintelligible 00:51:45.22\] I know almost zero about AI in coding, but I'm super-interested. It looks really interesting to see where is it going. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah, definitely... Both from the side of writing and from the side that's relevant to this episode, which is the reviewing and the explaining, and so on. |
**Anderson Queiroz:** I think in general, AIs can see the context, and they carry so much information. Part of the things that we just can't. And sometimes someone really experienced can, but they cannot teach it... So there's definitely a lot of value. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah, exactly. About the context in particular. |
**Angelica Hill:** I sense a Twitter poll, Natalie... "Would you let an AI review your code?" |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Hm... Maybe this can be my unpopular opinion for this episode. I would not have it just review "Good/Bad", but I would use it as something like "Here's the code. What does it do?" Or "List the problems, and then read the output, and give it a secondary review." I think this might end up being a... |
**Anderson Queiroz:** True. |
**Angelica Hill:** Now you've explained it and won us over to your side. I feel like it will be popular. |
**Anderson Queiroz:** Yeah... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Okay, my next Chrome plugin. Each episode is like 15 other ideas, yeah... Summarize this PR for me. Well, this has been fun and this has been inspiring. Anderson, thanks a lot for joining us and sparing some of your time at GopherCon U.K. |
**Anderson Queiroz:** Thank you very much for having me. It was really good. I'm really happy. |
**Angelica Hill:** Thank you so much. We're gonna have to get you back on for the "Who owns our code?" episode. \[laughter\] |
**Anderson Queiroz:** Yeah, I would love it. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** It's a plan. And everybody I hope you will also join us, and thanks for joining us this time. |
**Angelica Hill:** Bwye! |
**Anderson Queiroz:** Thank you very much. Bye-bye! |
• Discussing effective pull request (PR) management and communication |
• Importance of clearly communicating expected changes before re-reviewing code |
• Role of version tracking in software development and its challenges |
• Introducing Code Insights by Sourcegraph for tracking versions, migrations, and other codebase insights |
• Alternative methods for version tracking and their limitations |
• What is a PR (Pull Request) and its purpose |
• Explaining PRs to high school students |
• Benefits of using PRs, including getting feedback from senior engineers |
• Assessing PRs, including what makes a good or bad review |
• Deciding when to submit a PR for review, including knowing when work is complete |
• Origins of "pull request" terminology |
• Difference between "code review" and "pull request" |
• Semantics of "pull request", including why it's called a "request" |
• Variations in terminology across different companies and teams (e.g. "changelog") |
• Debate over optimal length for pull requests |
• Pull requests can be too large or too small |
• Effective review requires a manageable size for the reviewers to understand all changes |
• Encapsulating functionalities and breaking down code into smaller parts helps with reviews |
• A single reviewer may not have the time or expertise, but multiple reviewers can share the load |
• The number of lines, commits, or files is not a definitive measure of PR size |
• Trusting team members' opinions on PR size is key to effective collaboration and review process |
• Discussion of team conventions for reviewing pull requests |
• Importance of breaking down complex PRs into smaller, more manageable parts |
• Analogy of baking a cake to illustrate the process of breaking down tasks and getting feedback on individual components |
• Measuring the effectiveness of reviewing process, including the difficulty in measuring metrics such as number of reviewers or commits |
• Reviewing approach: starting with individual components and then assembling the final product for review |
• Importance of experience and intuition in determining what size and scope of PRs to ask for feedback on |
• Discussion of an awkward moment in a previous conversation |
• Introduction of Austrian dessert "Eskule" |
• Interview with Robert Ross, founder and CEO of Fire Hydrant |
• Description of Fire Hydrant's purpose: to help teams manage incidents and stay focused on core product development |
• Review of PR review best practices |
• Importance of empathy in code reviews |
• Discussion of resources for improving code review skills |
• Giving feedback in a way that is easily received involves empathy |
• Assuming one always knows the answer can be problematic |
• Fresh perspectives are valuable in code reviews |
• Acknowledging the work of others and their thought process is essential |
• Empathy is crucial in code review conversations |
• Reviewing for functionality and style/code quality can be both automated and subjective |
• Having shared team norms on coding practices can facilitate smoother code review conversations |
• Interpersonal feedback should also follow established team norms and goals |
• Shared standards for code style and review process |
• Importance of calling out minor issues like spelling mistakes in PRs |
• Different approaches to reviewing depending on the level of the person who submitted the PR |
• Leaving good feedback for senior engineers, even if they may not receive it from others |
• Overcoming intimidation when receiving reviews from more experienced engineers |
• Value of fresh perspectives and challenging assumptions |
• Importance of subject matter expertise in code reviews |
• Leveling doesn't matter, it's about expertise, not position or experience |
• Comfort level with correcting and being corrected by colleagues from different backgrounds |
• International collaboration and reviewing code from non-native English speakers |
• Tone and language barriers in communication |
• Difficulty interpreting tone in written feedback |
• Challenges of giving or receiving constructive criticism across cultures |
• Importance of empathy when dealing with colleagues from different linguistic backgrounds |
• Experiences of working in a multicultural team where English is not the native language of all members |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.