> Is that why we do code reviews, because we don't trust each other? I don't see any other reason to require code reviews before a change can be merged. > hum

> Is that why we do code reviews, because we don't trust each other? I don't see any other reason to require code reviews before a change can be merged. > humans make mistakes Then write unit tests, religiously. And pair. Or "... request reviews when they think it's necessary". In my experience code reviews are not very good at catching mistakes. > Different work in progress can be in conflict with each other. Code reviews are the cause of too much work in progress, not the solution. Not the only cause. > Reviews are a good way to learn from each other In my experience, they are pretty bad at this. Pairing is vastly superior, or giving talks. > reason to communicate with devs I might not otherwise communicate with Then communicate with them. And if you want a review "... request reviews when they think it's necessary". > Rejected Exactly. That's not a useful form of interacting with your peers.