3 ms·
Counterpoint: The actual review of an "extremely trivial" change may not take much time (seconds), but it can take orders of magnitude more time (minutes to hou
by davidrupp 5y ago
Counterpoint: The actual review of an "extremely trivial" change may not take much time (seconds), but it can take orders of magnitude more time (minutes to hours) to coordinate and execute that review (notify team of pending review, wait, ping team, wait, ping individual devs, wait, ...).
- munificent 5y agoI've spent the past decade working at a company that requires all changes to be reviewed no matter how trivial. Changes can be reviewed after the fact if the author marks it "to be reviewed". Doing that is rare, like <1% of changes. I have never found this policy to significantly hamper my overall productivity both as an author or as a reviewer.
- davidrupp 5y agoSo have I, except it's been three companies. One of them, ThoughtWorks, had built-in code review in the form of pair programming. I don't really have data on productivity, one way or the other, nor a strong opinion on the desirability or benefit of mandatory review. I was just addressing the specific comment of "Not much time is lost" above. Ç'est la guerre.