I think the problem is more about workflow than code review per se. I have previously complained about the exact same things as this article. If you factor in y

I think the problem is more about workflow than code review per se. I have previously complained about the exact same things as this article. If you factor in your CI pipeline as well it could be hours from writing a patch until its merged and during that time you are in practice blocked from continuing to build stuff on top of your previous commit. Because of this high friction you wont bother to rename that variable or fix that whitespace because its not worth the time. Instead I thought it would help to make code reviews optional. It is dangerous and I wouldnt recommend it for everyone and it only works if you have a CI pipeline in place of good quality. What you do is that you allow people to push directly to master, then you have your CI system continously testing all the latest commits and only if something breaks will it report it back and then the person who wrote that commit needs to fix it. I have never tried this in a real working environment but I think it would decrease friction a lot and just be slightly worse in quality. Also instead of pushing to master you could have a staging area that automatically pushes to master if it passed the tests. That might even be better actually.