1–10 of 77 posts
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pete-heard-lr_git-activity-7129496167645618176-Viyp
I am curious if anyone else has any thoughts regarding this matter.
I trust myself. I still want someone to review my work. If nothing else than to essentially catch typos.
You can’t proofread your own output.
On the other hand I've worked with people who need more reminders (eventually we had to discontinue our relationship) to do the right thing:
Does the PR make sense?
Did you format the code?
Did the tests pass?
Did you fix the tests? Or did you just comment them out?
And for the people I trust, it's because they insanely high quality of code, consistently. And even for them, while I DO trust them, I prefer PRs.
4 eyes see more, and we have different mindsets.
No. I trust myself. I still want someone to review my work. If nothing else than to essentially catch typos. You can’t proofread your own output.
On the other hand, I've had it where small (single character!) PRs have to wait for several days because I need to keep bothering my team to review them. But this seems like a problem that solvable organizationally somehow (not sure how?) rather than by eliminating an important part of the process.
Perhaps it should be possible to bypass code review and smoke testing for minor changes to code comments that do not change production artifacts.
Another problem is creating sufficiently appropriate test infrastructure to retest the area(s) touched and exponentially/phase deploy looking for positive and negative signals.
So basically no.
[0] It's not mine, it's my employers.
With all the trust and good faith in the world, humans are still fallible. "High velocity" isn't helpful if you've lost control.