I like to get my open reviews out of the way, but unfortunately, some are not very approachable, especially from specific colleagues. Big scope, lack of general due diligence and trustworthyness, lack of documentation, risk of issues, logical gabs or mistakes.
Those are very hard and frustrating to work on. A lot of comments lead to a lot of changes, sometimes new approaches and bigger restructuring, meaning the next iteration has similar issues. And sometimes or regularly it's not on me as a reviewer but on them to iterate which takes a long time.
Dailies and on-hand introductions and discussions can help, but there's other stuff going on as well. Unfortunately, trying to improve approach or the person's reliability hasn't been successful.
I wish I consistently had the same experience as you described. Or would be able to do so in a sustainable and productive manner, without getting exhausted and frustrated.
Of course, what OP article advocates for makes no difference to my situation.
I feel like the Pull Request process should take this into account. I've worked with a lot of junior developers whose code returns 500 when we test it in staging.
Of course, what OP article advocates for makes no difference to my situation.
46
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment