---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A4D3E770230; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:45:39 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <12.00CC2F6F@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:17:35 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 7978 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:17:29 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 7086; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:16:33 -0500 Received: from mail.ideorlando.org [208.63.70.76] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:16:33 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by mail.ideorlando.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ideorlando.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15CB2B002B for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.ideorlando.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ideorlando.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30672-03 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:19:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from TOFT (makita.onesaf.net [208.62.52.1]) by mail.ideorlando.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0242B0017 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:19:29 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ideorlando.org Message-ID: <001e01c3e694$17c9b830$16502a0a@TOFT> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:17:02 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Anthony Toft Subject: Re: [PIC:] Process To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20040129125546.01636a58@mail.cedar.net> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856301 > >Have you tried peer reviews and code walk-throughs? > > Not yet. Peer reviews are an _essential_ part of the development process, but don't limit them to the "formal" review, informal reviews ie one-on-one or three people are also very useful! A word of advice though, if you set up a formal review, it is essential you have a moderator to prevent bashing and to prevent digression and a scribe to capture that what comes out. The company I work for also suggests that these people are separate and niether of them wrote the code. Also that there is _NO_ management in the review, to facilitate free speech, and all distractions are left out of the meeting. Peer reviews are extremely informative to both the author and the reviewers (in a "why did you do it this way?" kindof way) If you want any info on how to set this thing up, let me know off list... -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. .