I've just been chatting to Chris Weller this afternoon about various odds 'n' sods, and the topic of code review came up. I recalled that Stack Exchange has a code review sub-site, but the CFML presence on it is pretty limp: 12 questions in two years. I think it's a pretty good idea though. I've added it to my RSS feed, and see what people post. And I'll put my oar in as needs must ;-)
For my daytime work, we have a very rigorous peer-review regime, in which all code is eyeballed by at least two people, and sometimes escalated further to a third person (depending on how mission-critical the code is). This works all right, and I think everyone on the team learns something from it. And we trap lots of issues and keep our code pretty uniform, which is a bonus too. Plus it helps keep more people in the loop as far as the various bits of our code goes (the codebase is pretty sprawling).
How do you peeps handle this sort of thing? Do you do intra-team reviewing like we do? What about if you're a stand-alone developer working remotely or doing contract / consultancy work? Do you just assume you're doing everything the right way? What about for collaborative open source projects which might have collaborative code input, but is there generally code quality oversight too?
I'm dead keen to hear what people do about this. 95% of the stuff I do is for work, so covered by our internal process, but I do write the odd bit of after-hours code (mostly for this blog), every now and then.
That's all I was wondering. Not very exciting.