Okay. Good point but I hope if people take the job seriously they will have to be very careful. Though that's ideal..
How about this:
owner/peer of the module has to sign off, and randomly select two more. One must be QA and one is another programmer who works on the module. We can also pick a "junior" level, but then that's probably not going to work since Apple employes programmers who have some years of experience already. Or we can pick someone who isn't directly working on that module, but have some qualification to do review. Mostly just asking "why are you having two goto, why return -100 here)
But I see counterargument: they will just listen to the author if he's senior or the owner who is also a senior. Their words carry weight.
How about this:
owner/peer of the module has to sign off, and randomly select two more. One must be QA and one is another programmer who works on the module. We can also pick a "junior" level, but then that's probably not going to work since Apple employes programmers who have some years of experience already. Or we can pick someone who isn't directly working on that module, but have some qualification to do review. Mostly just asking "why are you having two goto, why return -100 here)
But I see counterargument: they will just listen to the author if he's senior or the owner who is also a senior. Their words carry weight.