Our commits were usually quite large too. This is because we were all working on different sections of the code, and we wanted to commit stuff that “instantly worked” and was “instantly perfect”. So after days of silence, 1000 lines of code would suddenly go up for review…and as Jason Cohen can probably tell you, the number of defects found during review decreases as the amount of code to look at increases. So, the reviewer would skip through 1000 lines, assume most of it was OK, and give it the Ship It.
Yeah, I know. Awful. I wonder if this is a standard newbie mistake for student groups just starting out with code review…
So, study idea:
Have two separate groups working on some assignment. Have Group 1 commit to their repository without any review process. Have Group 2 do pre-commit reviews using a tool like ReviewBoard.
Now check out the size, frequency, and readability of the repository diffs of each group. Might generate some interesting data.
Anyhow, in our defence, we seem to have calmed down on MarkUs. Diffs up for review are pretty small, and get posted relatively frequently. Using ReviewBoard on MarkUs has made me a believer. Testify!