3 ms·
My interpretation of your comment is that if someone applies their experience and expertise during a code review, and comes up with issues or suggestions that a
by sfink 7y ago
My interpretation of your comment is that if someone applies their experience and expertise during a code review, and comes up with issues or suggestions that are not part of a written standard, then you will assume that your evaluation (maybe of the merits of the case, or perhaps just the importance) is more worthwhile/accurate than theirs.
Also, your preferred approach is to passive aggressively let the PR sit until external pressures build enough to force it through.
Do I have that right? If so, I personally find that to be a deeply problematic approach. Though I can imagine situations where it would be defensible and even optimal -- but those situations would involve working with idiots and/or control freaks. In which case my preferred approach would be to find a different place to work.
- fogetti 7y agoWell you got it right. I was surrounded by control freaks. Today I am the happiest man on earth because I don't have to put up with the idiocy of code reviews anymore.
- xpe 7y agoI’m curious: what sorts of things does your team do instead of code reviews? Does your team have norms around code quality? How are these maintained? What happens when a commit needs improvement? Does the team discuss it somehow? Does someone fix it with a follow up commit?
- fogetti 7y agoPair programming, live coding sessions and study sessions. When we start implementing something we define the definition of done and the acceptance criteria. When the code passes linting and meets the acceptance criteria it is accepted. If it doesn't then it's clear why not. There is no such thing as a commit needs improvement. It either passes or fails based on the above.