5
\$\begingroup\$

This question Gees - GPL Euler equation solver and its revisions were recently affected by this policy we have about how to add selfie-answers to your question

Specifically (I have bolded the particular section about comments only):

Posting on an external site

If you are unwilling to write a sufficient explanation to constitute a good Code Review answer, then it would be best to refrain from posting your follow-up on Code Review at all. Instead, you may host your revised code on an external site (e.g. GitHub, GitHub Gist, Pastebin, JSBin, JSFiddle, Ideone, SQLFiddle, your personal blog, etc.) Add a link to it only in a comment on the question or in a comment on the most helpful answer. Do not add it in the question or answer itself.

Although we disallow code in questions to be hosted on an external site, posting your revised code externally is fine, because:

  • The primary concern of the site is make justified suggestions for improving the code. The reviews are more valuable than the final product.
  • The "final" code is supplementary information that is not essential to the question-and-answer process.
  • Comments are considered disposable. If the link dies, we can just delete the obsolete comment.

I feel the edit made to the question was too distracting:

Edit Feb. 15:

The code is now on Github. Contributions and pull requests are welcome.

End edit

But, I see nothing wrong with a much more modest:

The code and its updates are hosted on Github. Contributions and pull requests are welcome.

The above edit is modest, and it is "as-if" it was there from the beginning.

I propose that the policy is amended to allow "modest" links to the off-site repository. It is significant information that deserves more than just an ephemeral comment.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I actually wanna see github links point to CR-revision, not head. \$\endgroup\$ – Pimgd Feb 5 '15 at 12:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I usually edit GitHub links to point to the HEAD commit that existed at the time the question was posted (except if the entirety of the code is reproduced in the CR question). Rationale: users should be able to see the state of the entire codebase at the time the question was posted, and it's easy to make a further jump to the future HEAD if they wish to see the latest code. \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Feb 5 '15 at 12:35
11
\$\begingroup\$

Yes - change the policy - but must be a revision link where possible

The post can be edited to include an off-site link, but, where possible, the link must point to the revision of code that's in the actual Code Review question

This version of code is here in [this repository here](http://some-where/some-repo/some-revision)

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Since it was me causing this whole "mess" I would definitely vote for a policy change. I do agree with this approach, but I feel it would be important that it is possible (as it is in my case) to highlight the fact of serious bugs in the code. Because I received bug reports via email and not via CR and so to a person visiting CR it will not be obvious. \$\endgroup\$ – Azrael3000 Feb 6 '15 at 4:12
4
\$\begingroup\$

Yes - change the policy

Questions can be edited to include links to off-site code as long as it does not "distract" from the question itself. "Modest" references to the code can be included:

This code is maintained in [this repository here](http://some-where/some-repo)

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

What's wrong with leaving a link to the repository in the question? Comments are ephemeral. They're not meant to stick around. Putting a link to the repository leaves a more permanent sign post to an updated version of the code for those interested in the project.

The problem here does not seem to be with the external link to an updated version of the code, but the giant bold "Edit" text surrounding it.

As for whether or not the link should point to a revision or not is... debatable. Personally, I think it depends on the intent. Is OP pointing to the code as a friendly, "Hey, it's maintained here." or "If you prefer to look at this code on GitHub to review it, it's here." I see nothing wrong with doing either, but I would personally prefer that we point to a revision so there is not confusion.

But to make it a policy.... that would be incredibly difficult to enforce.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Policy would be "Allow github links to question added as a "look guys I made updates"." This does not need enforcing as it's essentially the un-enforcing of "do not post github link with updated code in your question" \$\endgroup\$ – Pimgd Feb 5 '15 at 13:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ I meant enforcing that links point to a revision @Pimgd. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Feb 5 '15 at 13:03
-4
\$\begingroup\$

No change to policy

After-answer changes to include off-site code links can only be made in comments, not as edits to the question/answer

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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