3 ms·
We're going to have to agree to disagree, if you are arguing against mandatory code reviews in software projects. Beyond the obvious sanity checks, they exist
by pnut 5y ago
We're going to have to agree to disagree, if you are arguing against mandatory code reviews in software projects.
Beyond the obvious sanity checks, they exist for establishing collective consent, and knowledge sharing - these are responsibilities that increase with seniority, not decrease.
Junior people should never be permitted to sidestep the process, and senior people must be leaders and set an example.
But it's a big world, so do your thing.
- knorker 5y agoNo, I think as soon as a project has two people who care about it and will reliably review, it should be turned on as mandatory. But there will always be a way for one of these two to go around the process, if they really want to. Otherwise you have to plan for what happens if anybody becomes unavailable. But it's clearly not "the only thing that works". E.g. AFAIK OpenBSD still just gives core team the commit bit, and don't work on a "prevent" basis for enforcement. And if not OpenBSD anymore, then this has at least been the default model of CVS for over 30 years. It clearly does, in fact, work just fine. Now, enforced code review is better. So I agree with all you said in this comment. But it's not as simple as what you said before. But short of SOX-compliant stuff and very strict environments, there will always be people with "god" powers. As I understand it the PR author here could have turned off code review, merged, and turned it back on. And with the attitude she showed in the comment saying "yeah thanks this is my project so I do what I want", clearly "doing the right thing" was not on the radar. It didn't serve to remind her, because she knew. She acted as if "above the law" deliberately. So in almost all cases yes. In this case no.