Code review is a means of enforcing higher level, more important software development policies. Is there a design for this? Does at least one other person unde

Code review is a means of enforcing higher level, more important software development policies. Is there a design for this? Does at least one other person understand why this is being done? Does at least one other person understand what these changes could break? Code review protects from sloppy thinking and poor planning very easily. "I don't know what this is, or what it does, where is the design for this?" pumps the brakes on those sorts of changes. Code review as a means of ensuring code quality (whatever that means) is secondary, and it requires much more of a time commitment on the part of the reviewer. This is what can make code review slow, and this is the fat to cut, to make code review faster. It's probably not worth 45 minutes of developer time to generate a vast plethora of nit picks and discussions about what is idiomatic. For a new hire / junior engineer: maybe worth it. Under steady-state conditions: definitely not.