[jbmsf]

Recently, I've been wondering about the point of code review as a whole.

When I started my career, no one did code review. I'm old.

At some point, my first company grew; we hired new people and started to offshore. Suddenly, you couldn't rely on developers having good judgement... or at least being responsible for fixing their own mess.

Code review was a tool I discovered and made mandatory.

A few years later, everyone converged on GitHub, PRs, and code review. What we were already doing now became the default.

Many, many years layer, I work with a 100% remote team that is mostly experienced and 75% or more of our work is writing code that looks like code we've already written. Most code review is low value. Yes, we do catch issues in review, especially with newer hires, but it's not obviously worth the delay of a review cycle.

Our current policy is to trust the author to opt-in for review. So far, this approach works, but I doubt it will scale.

My point? We have a lot of posts about code review and related tools and not enough about whether to review and how to make reviews useful.

[Feeble]

I am very much in the same position right now. My dev team has introduced mandatory code reviews for every change and I can see their output plummeting. It also seems that most code reviews done are mostly syntax and code format related - noone actually seems to run the code or look at the actual logic if it makes sense.

I think its easy to add processes under the good intention of "making the code more robust and clean", but I never heard anyone discuss what is the cost of this process to the team's efficiency.

[alkonaut]

The value of having more people actually see the code will be there even if it’s just an unnecessary syntax nitpick.

[mgaunard]

You need to validate things like syntax upfront so that such things don't make it to review to begin with.

I'm not a fan of automatic syntax formatting but you can have some degree of pre-commit checks.

[benrutter]

Interesting take! Personally I'd never throw out code review, for a couple reasons.

1. It's easy to optimise for talented, motivated people in your team. You obviously want this, and it should be the standard, but you also want it to be the case that somebody who doesn't care about their work can't trash the codebase.

2. I find even people just leaving 'lgtm' style reviews for simple things, does a lot to make sure folks keep up with changes. Even if there's nothing caught, you still want to make sure there aren't changes that only one person knows about. That's how you wind up with stuff like, the same utility functions written 10 times.

[pm90]

My rule of thumb is that if you have an OnCall rotation for a codebase, you should require reviews. Besides all the benefits you've mentioned, its important to spread know-how of the code so that people on the rotation don't need to be pulled in e.g. over the weekends/on vacation because they're the only ones familiar with the code.

(There should be breakglass mechanisms to bypass code reviews, sure. Just the default should always be to require reviews)

[dsego]

You can also automate it now with AI code review tools. You get most of the benefits, it will catch most obvious mistakes and suggest code changes.

[mgaunard]

The way I like to do it, is that some projects may have an owner (can only be a single person).

The owner is allowed to make changes without review.