My recommendations when checking in a new feature or substantial change: 1. Meet in person 2. The coder should print out copies of the diffed code for each

My recommendations when checking in a new feature or substantial change: 1. Meet in person 2. The coder should print out copies of the diffed code for each attendee 3. Have roles in the meeting - someone to read the code, someone to capture bugs + severity, and the rest are there to review the code 4. Coder takes documented defects, fixes them and reports back to the group with diffs. 5. Metrics can be kept, used as feedback to improve process. Usually 4-5 people are sufficient for a large chunk of functionality. Is this process slower than gerrit? yes. Do you get better feedback, and better understanding (at a team level) of the code base? yes. I haven't seen software that really emulates this experience - there is an interesting opportunity here.