4 ms·
The article is not saying that no code reviews are done, but that it is not manditory. For on boarding code reviews are useful, but you could also do some pair
by fjfaase 5y ago
The article is not saying that no code reviews are done, but that it is not manditory. For on boarding code reviews are useful, but you could also do some pair programming or work together on the code.
- kgeist 5y agoWe have not only code reviews, but also mandatory architecture reviews. Everyone dumping random code to main doesn't scale in the long term without a coherent architectural/technical vision. Without it, it's very likely to end in a Big Ball of Mud. We started that way too - faster iterations, little design, and it did help us gain some foothold, but after a few years it became unmanageable and hard to extend/mantain. It's been 3 years since we started untangling our legacy system built that way and our growth is still impeded by it. Context matters: their approach works OK if you're only starting out, but at some point you're going to rethink your processes. Many (most?) companies start that way, foregoing code reviews, even tests and proper QA, to release earlier; but eventually you start to appreciate them as your product matures. It's important to not miss the moment when your codebase becomes large/complex enough that you need to rethink your processes.