4 ms·
Well, what's the solution here, he should ship less stuff?
by emodendroket 4mo ago
Well, what's the solution here, he should ship less stuff?
- kentm 4mo agoThe solution is that he spends more time scoping the size of the PR so that it’s reviewable and understands the code he’s submitting well enough to have discussions about it. And that he does so human to human so that they can come to mutual understanding.
- lelanthran 4mo ago> Well, what's the solution here, he should ship less stuff? The solution is in the title - he wants human attention, he needs to demonstrate human effort.
- usefulcat 4mo agoThe solution is to merge more of his PRs on the condition that he takes at least partial responsibility for any resulting problems.
- rwmj 4mo agoThat's not how anything works. Even if he says he's going to take responsibility, when the customer call comes in at midnight you're going to be the one fixing his problems.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- t43562 4mo agoThe reviewer gets to merge the PR so their name appears on all the great new features and they are credited for them. That would end his unfair behaviour of dumping effort onto other people. OR - he gets a review for every review he does.
- latentsea 4mo agoLess WIP is better for the throughput. If you saturate all the review bandwidth you're just wasting your time creating more PRs, the time would be better spent helping others get their PRs merged.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- JimDabell 4mo agoHe isn’t shipping anything. Asking for code review is not shipping. This is the complaint: > he doesn't make it easy for the team to look at. He has traded readability for volume. The lack of readability is causing him to ship less. This was a bad trade because the readability is the bottleneck not the code creation. He should improve readability.
- wffurr 4mo ago>> the readability is the bottleneck not the code creation. He should improve readability. See this is where I think LLMs can actually improve software engineering. Use them to write better code not more code. The most useful LLM at work so far is the code review bot that occasionally finds things that I missed even with a careful self review and good test coverage. We should be prompting the LLMs to review our hand written code for security, correctness, style, maintainability, etc., and then use human review for good design and sanity checking. The bots can do things like hold all the C++ correctness rules in their context and apply them sometimes better than even a human expert.
- loglog 4mo agoThe bots can also write Rust instead of C++, doing away with the arcane nonsense accumulated by that legacy language. SCNR.
- wffurr 4mo agoBot-assisted Rust could be amazing; there's some ports already happening which wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe Rewrite-it-in-Rust can actually be a real thing and not just a meme. But it does put a big burden on implementors to understand what they're generating, and now it's in an unfamiliar language to boot.