Each commit should meet the following criteria: Have a well-written commit message. Has all tests passing when used on its own (e.g. when using git checkout SHA). Can be reverted on its own without also requiring the revert of commit that came before it. Is small enough that it can be reviewed in isolation in under 30 minutes or so.

What's wrong with a simple, feel good movie?

Building a wonky factory is way more fun than it has any right to be - and being rewarded for leaving last turn's pieces where they are (or punished for moving them) means that you're always working on top of the mess you made last turn, though you're never completely stuck.

Good review even if it didn't win your heart.

here is my set of best practices.I review libraries before adding them to my project. This involves skimming the code or reading it in its entirety if short, skimming the list of its dependencies, and making some quality judgements on liveliness, reliability, and maintainability in case I need to fix things myself. Note that length isn't a factor on its own, but may figure into some of these other estimates. I have on occasion pasted short modules directly into my code because I didn't think their recursive dependencies were justified.I then pin the library version and all of its dependencies with npm-shrinkwrap.Periodically, or when I need specific changes, I use npm-check to review updates. Here, I actually do look at all the changes since my pinned version, through a combination of change and commit logs. I make the call on whether the fixes and improvements outweigh the risk of updating; usually the changes are trivial and the answer is yes, so I update, shrinkwrap, skim the diff, done.I prefer not to pull in dependencies at deploy time, since I don't need the headache of github or npm being down when I need to deploy, and production machines may not have external internet access, let alone toolchains for compiling binary modules. Npm-pack followed by npm-install of the tarball is your friend here, and gets you pretty close to 100% reproducible deploys and rollbacks.This list intentionally has lots of judgement calls and few absolute rules. I don't follow all of them for all of my projects, but it is what I would consider a reasonable process for things that matter.

make great suggestions for how the authors could improve the articulation or organization of their work

The Good Review will raise smart and tough questions which the authors can then address in their revisions, or it might raise fresh considerations or new aspects of a design space that the authors hadn't fully fleshed out.

how the author’s arguments, results, and demonstrations fit into closely related work as well as the field as a whole.

raise whole new perspectives and angles of contribution that might be suggested by the work, or propose connections to areas of the literature that the author might not have thought of or even been aware of.

The Good Review reflects on the contributions or possible contributions of the work, and discusses the weaknesses and limitations in a positive manner, but most particularly clearly calls out the strengths and utility of the work as well.