upvote

points

by swiftcoder9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby rplnt7 hours ago|
next
[-]
You cannot deliver feedback on something that doesn't exist. If you mean a review in the style of "all of this is wrong and needs to be rewritten differently" then yes, that's something to be discussed beforehand. But I don't imagine this is what people think of when discussing a review.
reply
upvoteby jonahx8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Depends on how PRs function within teams. For some, the PR is a lightweight thing that is the preferred method of communication. It sounds like you are imagining a case where face to face communication, or communication over chat, is preferred for early stages, with the PR being a nearly final artifact. But it doesn't have to work like that.
reply
upvoteby swiftcoder7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think that's a valuable point. Especially as LLMs bring the cost of prototyping down (and reduce emotional investment in code written), it may be more viable to use PRs as proposals/sketches of a solution.

With human reviewers, I find that by the time someone has churned out enough of a solution to post a PR, they are already quite invested in specifics of the solution, and it makes it emotionally costly (to both author and reviewer) when someone says "hey, I'm not a fan of this whole approach, lets start over and do it this other way"

reply
upvoteby necovek3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I have seen many a PR where it is obvious it is an exploratory work: eg. figuring out how to use an external dependency that is imperfectly or incorrectly documented, etc. (You can claim this should be done ahead of time, but experience tells me you need to code it to learn it)

The emotional toll there is real, but this is exactly the moment when you expose the knowledge of that external dependency to the unbiased party that is the reviewer.

I like combining approvals to satisfy the urge for completion and closure, with a request for fast-follow refactor to better match the newly discovered model of interaction. (The worst code review experience I have seen is when a reviewer accepts it as-is and does a fast follow refactor themselves, depriving the author of the opportunity to learn and remain an expert in that area)

reply
upvoteby necovek4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
A discussion ahead of the implementation can also bias the two parties to that discussion and have them overlook the same implementation issue: many things you only understand once you start implementing.

If you have these parties review each other's code, I agree that rarely brings much value.

I think the best way to understand our experience with reviews is to stop and say: in a few sentences, what do you expect out of a quality code review? (sounds like nothing in your case, but I am curious)

reply
upvoteby teiferer8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Agreed. But those things are not mutually exclusive.
reply
upvoteby jvanderbot8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Agree. All the subtleties of how a high trust environment work are hard to enumerate
reply
upvoteby IshKebab5 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Depends on the change. Certainly most PRs don't need feedback before the PR is ready - the task is too obvious, and there's little to feed back on before there's any code.

For bigger changes, of course you need feedback on designs. But that could easily be in the form of draft PRs.

I definitely would push back on anything that required feedback before PRs. That's way too much process. Just going to slow you down for no benefit.

reply