Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Handle PuTTY (plink/tortoiseplink) even in GIT_SSH_COMMAND

> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > It is quite preposterous to call this an "iteration" of the patch
> > series, because the code is so different now. I say this because I want
> > to caution that this code has not been tested as thoroughly, by far, as
> > the first iteration.
> >
> > The primary purpose of code review is correctness, everything else is
> > either a consequence of it, or a means to make reviewing easier.
> 
> You are utterly wrong here.
> 
> The primary purpose of code review is to spot and correct the
> problems the submitter has missed.  The problems can span from
> stupid bugs that affect correctness to maintainability, to design
> mistakes, to clarity of explanation for both end users and future
> developers.
> 
> Among them, correctness problems are, as long as the problem to be
> solved is specified clearly enough, the easiest to spot by the
> submitter before the patch is sent out.  The submitter is focused on
> solving one problem, and if the updated code does not even work as
> the submitter advertises it would, that can be caught by the
> submitter before the patch is even sent out.  
> 
> Of course, humans are not perfect, and catching correctness problems
> is important, but that is not the only (let alone primary) thing.
> 
> When a submitter has been focusing on solving one problem, it is
> easy to lose the larger picture and to end up adding something that
> may be "correct" (in the sense of "works as advertised by the
> submitter") but does not fit well with the rest of the system, or
> covers some use cases but misses other important and related use
> cases.  If the "does not fit well" surfaces to the end user level,
> that would become a design problem.  If it affects the future
> developers, that would become a maintainability problem.
> 
> Compared to the correctness issue, these are much harder to spot by
> the submitter alone, who focused so intensely to get his code
> "correct".  The review process is of greater value to spot these
> issues.