Post-push reviews don't make sense to me - it's like checking movie tickets after you already watched a movie. Pre-push is much better because: 1. There's a cl

Post-push reviews don't make sense to me - it's like checking movie tickets after you already watched a movie. Pre-push is much better because: 1. There's a clear outcome - the change is either approved and carries the name of the reviewer, or it is not. This creates focus and sense of responsibility. Post-push reviews tend to turn into pointless chats followed by no action: "- I think it is better to do it differently. - Yeah, probably, whatever". 2. It's easy to automate them - a simple hook can reject a change that was not reviewed. With post-push you have to nag developers to review every commit, then you have to nag them again to fix whatever the reviewers found, then you have to nag them more to review that fix itself - and so on and on ad nauseum. 3. The quality bar is higher. It is psychologically easier for reviewer to NOT approve something that doesn't look right then to insist that the author fixes it after the fact (asking permission vs forgiveness) 4. Other people don't base their work on code that haven't been reviewed. "yes, you're right, it would be better to do it differently, but now it is used in 150 places, too much trouble to fix" (and next time reviewer won't even bother to mention small problems, the whole process slowly degrades). 5. Most importantly, all code in your shared repo is always reviewed. With post-push, given sufficient volume of commits, there's always some potentially buggy stuff that nobody looked at - and you probably don't even know what it is. I would even argue that in some teams not reviewing at all would be better then post-push because if you spend time doing reviews, and then nothing happens - you're just wasting time and effort.