3 ms·
Nothing wrong with reviewing your own code per se. But it's not a "code review" as such. It's very hard to spot your own mistakes, you tend to read what you in
by devrandoom 1y ago
Nothing wrong with reviewing your own code per se. But it's not a "code review" as such.
It's very hard to spot your own mistakes, you tend to read what you intended to write, not what's actually written.
This applies both to code and plain text.
- phamilton 1y agoWe used to have a "2 approvals" policy on PRs. It wasn't fully enforced, it was a plugin to Gitlab we built that would look for two "+1" comments to unhide the merge button. I used to create PRs and then review my own code. If I liked it, I'd +1 it. If I saw problems, I'd -1 it. Other engineers would yell at me that I couldn't +1 my own code. When I showed them PRs that had my -1 on it, they just threw their hands up and moved on, exasperated. I've carried that habit of reviewing my own code forward, even though we now have real checks that enforce a separate reviewer. It's a good habit.
- loa_in_ 1y ago<Author pushing> and <author, the aftermath> are separate states of being. It makes sense to me.
- 8note 1y agomy current experience working with LLMs to get code written is a lot like working with a new dev to the team to get code written. i want to get a first review of the results, but i also want somebody else's eyes on them after. just cause i didnt directly write the code doesn't mean i didnt write it