4 ms·
My experience with code reviews is that they always became adversarial. I tried to implement code reviews in my group many times and it didn't provide a lot of
by slindsey 8y ago
My experience with code reviews is that they always became adversarial. I tried to implement code reviews in my group many times and it didn't provide a lot of value.
We finally did it by using GitLab and requiring that every merge request to master must be reviewed by two team members. This provided code review on every piece of code instead of only on select pieces. GitLab allows us to enforce it easily, but the process can be done anywhere.
The nit-picky code reviewer gets overwhelmed defending his point of view and starts being a little more selective. The lazy programmer gets overwhelmed with constant changes and actually starts paying more attention. Somewhere along the way it has actually balanced out.
Discussions have allowed us to identify poor practices, new techniques, and implement some standards.
- nobody271 8y agoWhere I saw it be successful it was a pretty good team actually. Like pretty much everyone on the team was a reasonable person. The way they did it was before you check into any branch (other than master) you need to get a code review from one other person. So you'd go into the chat room, ask for the review and either get a :shipit or an email/notification on github about whatever was flagged. That worked pretty good but idk if the main reason it worked is because it was a reasonable group of people.