54
The Reviewer Isn't the Bottleneck (rishi.baldawa.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When you call the humans who keep production safe “the bottleneck” you’re painting a very specific picture. The reviewer as the obstacle. The gate as friction. Something to route around. Cue in the Balrog scene from Lord of the Rings. That picture determines what you build. The tools to remove reviewers look different from tools to support them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If review is the "bottleneck", I'd say the code needs to be optimized for review time. Ship small increments of easy to understand code, touching as small surface as possible, and make sure it passes the review with no need for corrections and re-review.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Ideally you can do that, but even the most well designed software ends up needing a larger refactor/reorganization that will touch a large portion of the code base.

    My boss likes to say "you aren't qualified to design something until you have built it once" which I do feel rings true. This inevitably leads to at least one major redesign for a significant codebase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Some people are more receptive to these kinds of things than others. Not only in terms of open mind but also how they are able to apply it (or capable of applying it?).

    I wish agreeing on intentions and improvements in terms of scoping and description would be met. Same with unnecessary, obvious issues showing up costing review time and iterations. I just don't get how these are issues - but they are - for or with some people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent