[tomasreimers]

I've felt like a broken record the past few weeks, but this.

Authoring has never been the bottle neck, the same way my typing speed has never been the bottle neck.

The bottle neck has been, and continues to be, code review. It was in our pitch deck 4 years ago; it's still there.

For most companies, by default, it's a process that's synchronously blocked on another human. We need to either make it async (stacking) or automate it (better, more intelligent CI), or--ideally---both.

The tools we have are outdated, and if you're a team with more than 50 eng you've already spun up a sub team (devx, dev velocity, or dev productivity) whose job is to address this. Despite that, industry wide, we've still done very little because it's a philosophically poorly understood part of the process (why do we do code review? Like seriously, in three bullet points what's the purpose - most developers realize they haven't thought that deeply here).

https://graphite.dev

[Dumblydorr]

What is the purpose of code review in three points? I’ll take a try, let me know other thoughts!

-functionality, does it work? And is it meeting reqs?

-bug prevention, reliability, not breaking things

-matching of system architecture and best practices for the codebase

Other ideas:

-style and readability

-learning for the junior and less so the senior probably

-checking the “code review” box off your list

[hakunin]

I don't honestly know why most people do code reviews, because it's often presented as some kind of "quick sanity check" or "plz approve". Here's why we do code reviews where I get to lead the practice:

1. Collaborate asynchronously on architectural approach: (simplify, avoid wheel reinvention)

2. Ask "why" questions, document answers in commits and/or comments to increase understanding

3. Share knowledge

4. Bonus: find issues/errors

There are other benefits, like building rapport, getting some recognition for especially great code.

To me code reviews are supposed to be a calm process that takes time, not a hurdle to quickly kick out of the way. Many disagree with me however, but I'm not sure what the alternative is.

Edit: people tend to say reviews are for "bug finding" and "verifying requirements". I think that's at best a bonus side effect, that's too much to ask a person merely reading the code. In my case, code reviews don't go beyond reading the code (albeit deeply, carefully). We do however have QA that is more suited for verifying overall functionality.

[kevmo314]

I've found great benefit in voluntary code reviews. Engineers are self-aware enough that if they're at all worried about a change working they will elect for a voluntary code review. As a reviewer I also feel like my opinion is more welcomed because I know someone chose to do it instead of being forced so, so I pay more attention.

This really gets at the benefits you mention and keeps people aligned with them instead of feeling like code review should be rushed.

[tomasreimers]

This.

[alisonatwork]

To me the core purpose of code review is clear - knowledge sharing. If the only person who knows about a particular change is the person who wrote it, then you have a critical point of failure. If there is an issue in a subsystem whose owner is away or who has moved on, that issue is likely to take much longer to resolve if the person on the case is looking at the code for the very first time.

An AI maximalist might say that code review is no longer necessary because in the case that there is an issue in a subsystem nobody is familiar with, you can simply ask the AI to read that source code and come back with a report of where the bug is and a proposal of how to fix it. And, since code review is useless anyway, might as well take the human out of the loop entirely - just have AI immediately commit the change and push it to production and iterate if or when another issue emerges.

This is the dream of autonomous, self-managing systems! Of course this dream is decades old at this point, and despite developing ever more complex systems it turns out that we were never quite able to do away with humans altogether. Thus, code review still appears to be useful. But it's only useful if everybody goes into it with the mindset that the goal is knowledge sharing. If the outcome of a review is not that everyone comes out of it with a good understanding of the purpose and function of the code being committed, then imo it was a waste of time.

[peterldowns]

Hey Tomas, been a while! I like the approach that graphite is taking to AI code review — focus on automating the “lint” or “hey this is clearly wrong” or “you probably wanted to not introduce a security flaw here” type stuff, so that humans can focus on the more important details in a changeset. As your AI reviewers take on more tasks, have your answers to your question (“why do we do code review”) changed at all?

[tomasreimers]

Certainly! A lot less proof reading and pair programming and a lot more architecture / "hey should we be going in this direction" / sharing tribal knowledge

Also hi Peter! Long time :)