> if a reviewer makes it very difficult for any change to go in, then developers are disincentivized to make improvements in the future. This is a problem I se

> if a reviewer makes it very difficult for any change to go in, then developers are disincentivized to make improvements in the future. This is a problem I see far too often but it’s rarely talked about. Too often, engineers misinterpret “quality” code for “their” code. Code review turns from “what should we be doing here?” Into “what would this reviewing engineer name this one unimportant variable here?” There needs to be a happy medium between velocity and quality, and increasing velocity doesn’t necessarily mean decreasing quality.