> people writing code going through a thorough code review process and the code crashes the first time an end user tries to use the functionality. This is not

> people writing code going through a thorough code review process and the code crashes the first time an end user tries to use the functionality. This is not an argument against code review. This means that the change wasn't even ready for code review. Whoever put up those patches skipped the step before it, where they verified the functionality of their own code. Code review shouldn't -- can't -- be a time for someone else to mentally (or actually) execute the code and sign-off on it being bug-free. It's a sanity check for read-/maintain-ability. You can generally validate that the patch isn't doing something stupid or dangerous, but it's 100% on the submitter to ensure that their code works. If you have people putting code up for review without testing it first, then you have a bigger (people) problem, that code review will never be able to help with.