Skip to content

Conversation

@ntache-81
Copy link
Collaborator

Edit to Conduct Code Reviews practice

@ntache-81 ntache-81 requested a review from dcmoore February 11, 2025 15:12
All reviewers need to understand the broader context of the changes being made, including user requirements and architecture.
Lacking this context can result in misguided feedback or approval of suboptimal solutions.
All code reviewers need to understand the broader context of the changes being made, including user requirements and architecture.
Without this context, misguided feedback or approval of suboptimal solutions may occur. The best way for reviewers to gain context for code changes is to work closely with the code author during pair programming sessions.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Edit OK? I feel like we stopped short of providing the reader with an action item here.


Code reviews can become a bottleneck if not managed effectively.
If code reviews are going to be done asynchronously, teams should establish clear guidelines for review turnaround times and distribute review responsibilities accordingly.
If code reviews are going to be done asynchronously, teams need to establish clear guidelines for review turnaround times and distribute individual review responsibilities.
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this often the case, that they’re done asynchronously? Or is this a choice? Is synchronous code reviews more efficient? Suggest clarifying.

@dcmoore
Copy link
Member

dcmoore commented Nov 19, 2025

Going to rework this content to be a practice called: Perform Non-Integration Blocking Code Review

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants