Thread

1. dimbletimbers · 1790559269 · focus · HN ↗

   A defense of human code review I wish I saw more often, especially in light of the concerns people have about cognitive/comprehension debt: comprehension redundancy. At the end, if taken seriously, at least two people understand how the feature works (even if that number is, on average, trending closer to between one and zero). Ideally at least one of the two also comes away with a better understanding of the wider system and how the feature fits into or stands out from that landscape.

   1. atomicnumber3 · 1790560581 · focus · HN ↗

      If only one person knows the code, then PR time isn't going to save you.

      I'm tech lead and I basically don't review PRs, and I tell people this, with a caveat - if you can tell me what you specifically want me to review, for what specific purpose, I'm happy to!

      So "can you review this bit for race conditions" is great, love it. This forces people to actually think about what in their code they should be suspicious of, if anything.

      "Can you review this" [link to PR] is getting a rubber stamp because humans have never been good enough at "just spotting bugs" to make this worth it and now any LLM is better than a human.

      And for the purpose of understanding - PR time is too late. I have not reviewed a PR ("for real") in a long time and yet I could tell you how every system my people have built works down to a very fine level of detail. And it's because _we talk to each other!_ We don't just chill in the same slack channel and code independently, we all value each others brains and want each others inputs because we know it will improve our product and we value what perspectives others will bring.

      Trying to learn via PR is a sad substitute for real collaboration and teamwork.

      1. setr · 1790561929 · focus · HN ↗

         I consider PRs to be primarily a defense of the architecture, and to a lesser degree a general sanity check. It’s also a useful opportunity to enforce automations are being run

         1. atomicnumber3 · 1790562582 · focus · HN ↗

            I consider 99% of my "defense of the architecture" strategy to be teaching my team why the architecture is important, how to think about it, and invite they commentary on it as we own and evolve it together. And of course if they are doing something and want input or are uncertain, then my door is open.

            If PRs are a notable part of my architecture defense, I'm going to work on investing in the team instead of reviewing PRs.

            1. zx8080 · 1790567352 · focus · HN ↗

               > I consider 99% of my "defense of the architecture" strategy to be teaching my team why the architecture is important, how to think about it, and invite they commentary on it as we own and evolve it together.

               Nice way to avoid the responsibility for any team fuckup: it's not me, I only teach them, they decide themselves.

               1. sevenzero · 1790569473 · focus · HN ↗

                  >Nice way to avoid the responsibility

                  Welcome to the tech industry. Its all about shifting responsibility in case something goes wrong. Thats the only reason companies use third party software in the first place, to have a scapegoat...

                  1. andrekandre · 1790570973 · focus · HN ↗

                     performance reviews are also a great time to find a scapegoat as well

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.