15 ms·

> Only for a drive-by take-down by someone with none of the context If that's a regular issue that's a culture problem. Starting with "if you've been talking w

by detaro 5y ago

> Only for a drive-by take-down by someone with none of the context If that's a regular issue that's a culture problem. Starting with "if you've been talking with colleagues about your problem, why is someone with no context reviewing the result?", people not investing time in reviews, people doing "take-downs" instead of asking questions if they don't understand things, hold up merge for non-urgent concerns ... > Even helpful review comments might only take a minute to write but a day to incorporate. Either the feedback is worth the investment of the day of time, then no problem, otherwise it's not that important and doesn't need to be done (or depending on what it is can be done later or ...)

tshaddox 5y ago
> If that's a regular issue that's a culture problem. Couldn’t one also argue that if code reviews are routinely catching problems mentioned earlier in the thread (misinterpreted requirements, conflicts with other WIP, etc.) then that’s a cultural problem? It just seems odd to assume that the person assigned the task couldn’t possibly be expected to routinely avoid those problems, but that adding rigorous code review could routinely avoid them.
- kqr 5y ago
  Yup, definitely. Code review discovers both issues stemming from cultural problems and silly bugs and understandability issues. Peer review in general is a very powerful tool for things that should be designed to satisfy customer needs.
cfer43432t 5y ago
> otherwise it's not that important and doesn't need to be done Except that this decision is often not up to the code author, because the tooling rejects for example committing changes until all discussions are resolved (see Gitlab for example) and some @holes make their quest for any reason not to resolve the discussions that they started until the code author writes the exact code with the exact words in the exact indentation with the exact architecture, etc that those @holes like, which makes the whole code review like a torture and the REAL productivity killer. Not to mention that this does not provide any improvement to the code base either in most cases.

by detaro 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

> If that's a regular issue that's a culture problem. Couldn’t one also argue that if code reviews are routinely catching problems mentioned earlier in the thread (misinterpreted requirements, conflicts with other WIP, etc.) then that’s a cultural problem? It just seems odd to assume that the person assigned the task couldn’t possibly be expected to routinely avoid those problems, but that adding rigorous code review could routinely avoid them.

kqr 5y ago
Yup, definitely. Code review discovers both issues stemming from cultural problems and silly bugs and understandability issues. Peer review in general is a very powerful tool for things that should be designed to satisfy customer needs.

cfer43432t 5y ago

> otherwise it's not that important and doesn't need to be done Except that this decision is often not up to the code author, because the tooling rejects for example committing changes until all discussions are resolved (see Gitlab for example) and some @holes make their quest for any reason not to resolve the discussions that they started until the code author writes the exact code with the exact words in the exact indentation with the exact architecture, etc that those @holes like, which makes the whole code review like a torture and the REAL productivity killer. Not to mention that this does not provide any improvement to the code base either in most cases.