2 ms·
> I don't want to bother my colleague N times in the process. Think of it this way: the maintenance burden of your (lower-quality) work if you don't bother you
by kqr 4y ago
> I don't want to bother my colleague N times in the process.
Think of it this way: the maintenance burden of your (lower-quality) work if you don't bother your colleagues throughout the process will be way more bothersome than checking in up front.
- alkonaut 4y agoExactly. So how do you align everyone on that? The status quo is that people wait too long to make reviews (they are a formal process step at the very end). It's very hard to make it a formal step half way. At the very end, they are of limited value and seen as a chore. So they become rubber stamps. The quality of the code base suffers from this, making development slower. Everyone knows what the end goal is, yet "Code review finished code" is easy to adopt, but not very efficient unless the org is extremely good at what they are doing. "Pause for thought and collaboration half way" is much much harder to achieve, without taking it to the extreme (pair sessions enforced etc).
- kqr 4y agoTrain reviewers to look critically at the big picture before they dive into details. That's going to hurt at first: almost finished code is going to be rejected and have to be reworked heavily or deleted entirely. But after a while, people will learn how to avoid it: seek feedback at an earlier stage.