3 ms·

At a previous company, we adopted a system similar to Google's early review process. Every repo would have two owners (for redudancy in case of sickness). We'd

by Denzel 11y ago

At a previous company, we adopted a system similar to Google's early review process. Every repo would have two owners (for redudancy in case of sickness). We'd put the emails of both owners in an OWNERS file. Then, whenever a pull request would pop up, an automated process would send out an email to the owners. It would continue badgering them, decreasing the period between reminder emails in proportion to how long the pull request has stood outstanding. This was a great, easy process that helped ensure a timely review for our pull requests.

protomyth 11y ago
Interesting, that sounds like it works ok for two owners. I was at a place where I was the code reviewer for C programs[1], and its was every scheduling nightmare and being stuck in a fish bowl that you would assume. This was not distributed, so I would do the review then there would be a meeting where we went over the review. It was not fast development, but it sure was documented. One of two computer related activity that almost got me killed[2]. 1) but, interestingly, not allowed to write any since who would review mine? sigh... 2) don't review really bad (MST3K-level bad) C code in a car with two C gurus (one of which was driving)