15
\$\begingroup\$

CR has a strict "we only review code you've written or maintain" policy, which is perfectly reasonable, but how should we treat reviews that rely on 3rd party code (i.e. libraries that aren't part of the standard library)?

The motivation behind this question is a JS/CSS review that included a minified version of a well known JS polyfill for browsers that don't support media queries (Respond.js) as part of the review. I didn't even notice it when I initially reviewed it, but a later reviewer reviewed that portion of the code as well. It's since been cleaned up and had the offending code and its references removed.

How should we handle this in the future? My gut tells me that we should be editing this out and replacing it with a link to the library in question.

\$\endgroup\$
13
\$\begingroup\$

I think the poster's intention behind embedding the minified Respond.js library in the question was just to make the Stack Snippet work, and not to request a review of it. The minified code, arguably, doesn't really qualify as source code anyway. (The GPL, for example, defines source code as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" — which minified code isn't.)

It wasn't a big problem in the first place, but I've now edited the question to just link to Respond.js instead.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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