Post #1814692

@jakobmiksch I think it's a terrible idea, to be blunt. Reading other people's code is hard work. You're asking people to expend more effort for no actual gain. Presumably you're talking about open source and voluntary reviewers (I'm sure I don't need to point out this would be nonsensical in a business), and this just makes life harder for people who are already volunteering out of the goodness of their hearts. Why would I burn my limited energy playing stupid games? Besides, people miss things (that's what reviews are for). That means they might pick up some mistakes but not all of them; that's still valid. But by your scheme, they might pick up only the mistakes you put there and not the real ones, and that would still be valid. Next: how are your actually going to introduce errors in the system you're changing that are actually relevant? If your errors are introduced in a different system, you've wasted everyone's time by getting them to digest and understand two unrelated systems. If you error is in the same system, it's quite reasonable for someone to go "yeah, this isn't going to work due to this one error I've found" and simply stop there, and not even look for further errors. Finally, you have to remember to remove your own errors before the merge, which introduces a possible point of failure (and more work for you). Although, presumably with your scheme, they must be found by someone before you'll accept the whole change anyway, so perhaps not as big as issue. But, I mean, if I found out someone was doing this to me, I'd never look at their code again.