4 ms·
Even content changes can require deliberate thought. Any system of decent size is probably going to have upstream/downstream dependencies - adding a field migh
by SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
Even content changes can require deliberate thought. Any system of decent size is probably going to have upstream/downstream dependencies - adding a field might require other systems to account for it. I guess I can see small CSS changes, but how does the user know when the change is small or "small"?
- rgbrgb 1y agoPerhaps the system could tell them 80% of the time and the reviewer catches the other 20%. An easy heuristic that usually would work in this case is lines of code. It's a classically bad way to measure impact / productivity but it's definitely an indicator and this is probably a rare instance where the measurement would not break efficacy of the metric (Goodhart's law) and might actually improve the situation.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoBut that's what I mean, when things look small, and are easy to change in the place that it's being asked to be changed, but hidden under the iceberg is a bunch of requirements around that field, things like data stores, or generated pdfs, whether or not that field needs to be added to other calls that aren't in this code base.
- rgbrgb 1y agoyep, reviewers definitely need to be knowledgable about the codebase.
- SketchySeaBeast 1y agoSo now you get to manage the business user's expectations. That feedback loop is gonna be fun when they flood the reviewers with requests.