I think it was a great talk. It was very clear that you knew this topic in-depth and that you could argue convincingly for it.
Thank you for the new insights, I will certainly try to use them.
This talk might've been just a little bit difficult to follow for me, though.
Reading your other reviews, that is probably because I'm not as experienced in PHP yet, and not because of your talk itself.
Should you be interested, this is what I think would make it more useful/usable to me.
If you have a little more pause in between the different points of your argument, that can be like a breath of air. It enables me to actually process and store what you've said, before moving along to the next point.
Also, I've noticed you used some "It was easy to do, it took me less than five minutes to code." I feel that you've probably mentioned this to make the patterns you use instead of arrays more accessible to people, and to convince us we should use them. For me, I wasn't done reading your code example yet when you've mentioned that. I didn't really understand yet what was happening, and so that comment had the exact opposite effect on me. It made it less accessible, and more scary to use. Because now, if I will try and use it, and won't think it is as easy, I will feel inadequate. I don't think that's your job to deal with, it's mine. However, using the "This is so easy" argument in a talk almost always distracts me from the actual point of the talk, even if I'm very familiar with the subject and can follow along easily.
I liked the context about cryptography, the little bit of background so to speak. Just to get a feeling for what it is we're dealing with. I think it fit especially well with the time slot you had on the Saturday afternoon, too. What's more, i heard some nice new things, about key signing sessions for example, which i did not know about yet. Thank you
It has been mentioned before, but the structure of the talk was really nice and the talk just had a very nice flow about it.
Contents wise, for me code reviewing as a concept was not new. However, it was good to have a clear and concise talk about it, and also, to get pointers on how to use this tool as effectively as possible, which I had not given that much thought to before.
Thank you for a great talk. I thought it was very clear and very well explained. Although a bit chaotic at times, really liked the live demo. It helped to get a feeling of how to actually work with sniffs. I'm interested to explore this further :).
I think it was a great talk. In contrast to most others, I liked the intro. I think that even though most of us know about the "Why", it doesn't hurt to repeat in short, so we can internalize it.
What it did for me was mostly nudge me to really consider how i could make our CI/CD pipeline better and think about what other tools we could use. And actually do something with it when I got back to work.
I had never heard of mutation testing before, and am now trying it out. So for me, your talk definitely had things to take away from the conference and use directly, which I think is a huge plus.
It was well explained and structured, and it made a quite convincing argument.
I have the impression you have a thorough understanding of event sourcing. I think you could have maybe structured the talk a bit better so that you're telling a logical story. But also without that I really liked the idea and the execution of the project.
I could have listened to this talk for another hour easily. Some traps were more "trappy" than others, but this is a talk I would really recommend the juniors in my company.
Will the slides be available so I can share them with them?
Great talk with great insights into mutation testing.
About the contents: you showed a lot of knowledge an insight into what one can improve, but I was lacking some explanation on finding out _what_ to change and _when_.
About the presentation: keeping your hands in your pocket is not a pose that radiates (positive) energy. I would try to change that.