6
\$\begingroup\$

This is the close reason I'm talking about:

enter image description here

Currently, the "you own or maintain" link points to this meta question, but we've recently made a slight modification to the policy, per this meta question: Can we revisit "Did I write that code myself"?.

Currently, the question and both answers are community wiki. Would it be better to edit all of these into something more along the lines of the current policy, or would it simply be better to create a new meta question and answer to link to?

Either way, I think with the new policy, it will be important to emphasize in the meta question the close reason links to that questions asking us to review code that will affect whether someone gets hired/fired go against the spirit of Code Review and will be closed.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ Keep in mind that the revisit question was only for discussion, so it shouldn't be linked in the close reason. Perhaps we should edit the currently linked question itself? \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Aug 11, 2014 at 22:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that "Can we revisit..." should be the question we link to. It's not really the proper format for someone looking for an understanding of the close reason. \$\endgroup\$
    – nhgrif
    Aug 11, 2014 at 22:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Then the question definitely needs to be updated, and a more current answer can be added if needed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jamal
    Aug 11, 2014 at 22:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't think that I would describe the 'revisit' as a change in policy for Code Review. It just changed the wording of the help-center to match the close reasons. I don't consider that to be a change in policy. \$\endgroup\$
    – rolfl
    Aug 11, 2014 at 22:26
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ An answer with 18 upvotes in the linked question suggests that posting one's predecessor's code is not okay. Plus your comment on the accepted answer @rolfl suggests that you should only be posting code that you actually wrote yourself. These are both contrary to the result of the "Revisit" questions conclusion. \$\endgroup\$
    – nhgrif
    Aug 11, 2014 at 22:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think we should edit the answer to add the clarification that it has to be code that you own OR maintain, and that the reasons for that are that you should be able to explain WHY the code was written in the way it is and WHY you need the code to do what it does and WHY you can't use X, Y or Z.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't immediately see why "why you need the code to do what it does" is something we need in order to review questions--but perhaps it is. Also, given that we've expanded to "own or maintain", the answer to "why the code was written in the way it is" may not always be available. \$\endgroup\$
    – nhgrif
    Aug 12, 2014 at 11:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sorry, I mean "you must be able to supply context" but that's a bit vague \$\endgroup\$
    – Pimgd
    Aug 12, 2014 at 11:32
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Srsly, I can now submit code I must maintain, AWESOME! \$\endgroup\$
    – konijn
    Nov 11, 2014 at 20:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .