This question already has an answer here:
The case: Somebody posts code for review then follows up with all the analysis and some of the answers is accepted.
The suggestion: Some kind of finalization post by the dev who is asking the question which is the corrected/final implementation according to all proper suggestions and analysis.
Why: To get not only the review/analysis but to get to the final version. Sometimes the analysis points out to several aspects of the code which need to be updated without explicitly writing the whole code. This is ok since the analysis is good but the dev asking the question needs to do his homework and to update his code on his own.
By providing the final result in separate post we have
- Clean/final result
- Clean "story" from beginning to end
- The satisfaction of the analysis provider that the recipient got it right and implemented it right too
Is not this the standard path of a code review in a software workshop/company?
Initial code/review post -> analysis -> correction/update -> final code
What do you think?