Comments on: Screencasting Code Reviews is Hard

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:46:32 +0000

This reminds me of a podcast I listened to recently (can’t remember which one). Something about recording solutions to math problems.

The point was that making it perfect is a bad thing. The point is to show the viewers how one arrives at a solution. That includes mistakes, dead ends, stumbling, etc.

By: Jesse Gibbs

Jesse Gibbs — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:04:00 +0000

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on performing code review over screencast as opposed to using an ‘inline commenting’ style that most tools support. My gut feeling is that since people write code rather than speaking it, code review is more easily done via writing than talking.

If there are benefits to audio/video format for reviews, perhaps as a complement to inline commenting, I’m very interested to hear them!

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:17:53 +0000

@Jonathan:

Ha! I’d seen that posted up in the sweatshop – I have to agree.

I may have represented myself in this post though – when I give up in frustration, it’s not because I’m swearing into the mic – but rather because I don’t feel like I’m doing a thorough enough job when I’m talking instead of thinking.

Thanks for posting!

-Mike

By: Jonathan Lung

Jonathan Lung — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:30:52 +0000

It seems like you’ve stumbled upon another code review metric… http://www.osnews.com/story/19266/WTFs_m