Rethinking how we approach code reviews

Rethinking how we approach code reviews(sourcery.ai)

2 points by brendanator 2 years ago | 3 comments

So are FDA inspections, housing inspections, etc., etc., I guess.

On a less snarky note:

>Peer reviews can be done asynchronously after the fact

This assumes that the author of that code will go back and address any code review comments. OP seems focused on shipping fast, which is fine, but I would bet that this means that any review comments that don't find showstopper bugs don't get addressed - after all, why fix nuts in something that's shipped and not broken? That's a tax on productivity!

I think people forget what taxes actually do for us.

brendanator 2 years ago | |

Haha fair counter - but I think the typical current ways of reviews is more unnecessarily inefficient and the downside risk of something going wrong in a PR being merged is way lower than in the FDA/housing inspection case.

There are types of code changes that definitely need reviews - but those are the small minority of all code changes and the way we approach those changes should be different from how we handle all other changes

tjpnz 2 years ago |

This is just one big ad for their product.