 |
August 22, 2019, 08:11:40 AM
Last edit: August 22, 2019, 02:35:26 PM by davereikher |
|
Say I'm a fresh contributor and I would like to review somebody's pull request. If I read the code and find issues with it and bring them up - that would obviously contribute. The issue raised is proof that I actually reviewed the code. However, if I just pull the branch being reviewed, test it and then report that the code tested ok, I might be, in the worst case scenario, not telling the truth. So, I'm guessing that as a new contributor if I give an ACK, utACK, etc., their weight (I hope) is much lower than that of seasoned contributors.
The question is then - as a new reviewer, should I bother writing 'unprovable' review conclusions (such as "I ran the tests and they pass") and should just concentrate on raising issues with the code?
|
