> You can fix typo's just by, well, fixing the typo... You're more inclined to engage with the code rather then just reading it... This is all the value, isn'

> You can fix typo's just by, well, fixing the typo... You're more inclined to engage with the code rather then just reading it... This is all the value, isn't it? Anything that forces the "reviewer" to become an "editor" suddenly massively increases the value of the "review." People like the GitHub workflow because... then they don't have to do that work. This is fine. I'm not sure how worse developers become better ones, except by fixing their mistakes. So if you're a huge corporation and you have the luxury to have a lot of redundant, in-training employees, many fresh out of school with no useful experience, great, reviews by senior people, so long as the junior person's code isn't actually written for them, can transmit some training value. > However, people tend to look at me like I'm crazy for suggesting something like this If you're a tiny startup and you have a junior developer, you've sort of already screwed up haven't you? Either you want to train them, and that's a huge mistake because you don't have the bandwidth for that. Or you do their work for them, which is like, why have them around at all then?