
Code Reviews are Broken - aard
https://medium.com/@ard_adam/code-reviews-are-broken-here-is-how-to-fix-them-c34497f1721b
======
gcommer
I agree with the general point of the article, though the main
compare/contrast of different code review scenarios seems to speak more about
deadlines for code reviews than code ownership. Where I work we just expect
multi-day turnaround times on most PRs so that the reviewer can schedule it
however they see fit, and that does more to relieve code review stress than
anything else.

Assigning PRs to code "owners" just seems like common sense to me, and is
built in to github now.

------
leifg
Great article! I really like the notion of code ownership over checklists.

However I wonder how this would be implemented in reality. Write permissions
in git are managed by having different repositories. Splitting up your code
base into several repositories has serious drawbacks in terms of
maintainability and deployment.

There is definitely something to code ownership and I‘m looking forward to
follow up articles.

~~~
gcommer
It's fine for the write permissions to only be enforced by convention or
automated CI checks (eg, status checks on github PRs). No need to split up the
monorepo or anything.

------
he0001
The problem with code ownership is siloing. Because you are the only one who
understands the problem domain or “the code” this create dependencies which
doesn’t scale. I’d say code ownership is a smell and an indication that your
code isn’t clear enough. Code needs to change all the time and sometimes
completely.

