3 ms·
CI should be sufficient review for most code changes. Manually review architecture and design, but automatically verify implementation.
by couchand 5y ago
CI should be sufficient review for most code changes. Manually review architecture and design, but automatically verify implementation.
- GauntletWizard 5y agoThe review should be perfunctory, but a second set of eyes is always needed
- maximilianroos 5y agoThat seems inherently contradictory? Particularly if you put some cost on a) not being able to merge and build on the feature in another branch, b) disturbing someone to do something perfunctory
- GauntletWizard 5y agoIt is an inherent contraction. Having good testing and fast flow is a contradiction. The advantage of a second set of eyes is simply a sanity check... from a second pair of eyes. It's all a balancing act, but it does prevent a large set of failure classes that are basically "This dude went crazy"
- nyanpasu64 5y agoBut if you push a bad commit to main without making a branch or PR first, then CI tells you about your mistake... after main is already broken and not "deployable any time"!
- methyl 5y agoJust thinking out loud: why in that case we couldn't have automatic revert of the push?