5 ms·
If it catches ANY bugs it is objectively better than no PR/code-review from a bug standpoint. Unless you're arguing that pr/code-review creates more bugs than i
by buttersbrian 5y ago
If it catches ANY bugs it is objectively better than no PR/code-review from a bug standpoint. Unless you're arguing that pr/code-review creates more bugs than it solves?
Again, I think the question is value. Is a dev's time best used in code-review vs. something else? It's almost certainly the case that time is better spent elsewhere depending on the develop and needs or the organization.
- Abroszka 5y ago> If it catches ANY bugs it is objectively better than no PR/code-review from a bug standpoint. No, that's false. That's only true if you also assume that people write the same quality code whether there is a code review process or not. Which might or might not be true, no idea.
- cunac 5y agoif anything I would think that person would write same code but without PR would lost the opportunity of having better quality. People are blind to own mistakes. I can't count how many times I would stare at a code not seeing something and other person would spot problem almost immediately.
- munchbunny 5y agoI think the question is the same one as "do bike helmets reduce bike injuries?" I.e. without code reviews, is everyone more careful? I can't think of any proper academic research that answers the question. In my anecdotal experience, there is at least one class of bugs that code reviews are good at catching that a large expenditure of self-review effort often doesn't catch: security bugs.