|I'm hoping to find ways to improve the code review process at the company where I work.|
My team has a fairly has a fairly standard github PR-based process. When you have some code you want to merge into the master branch you open a PR, ask another developer or two to review it, address any comments they have, and then wait for one of the reviewers to give it an LGTM (looks good to me).
The problem is that there can be a lot of lag between asking someone to review the PR and them actually doing it, or between addressing comments and them taking another look. Worst of all, you never really know how long things will take, so it's hard to know whether you should switch gears for the rest of the day or not.
Over time we've gotten used to communicating a lot, and being shameless about pestering people who are less communicative. But it's hard for new team members to get used to this, and even the informal solution of just communicating a ton isn't perfect and probably won't scale well.
So, has anyone else run I to similar problems? Do you have a different or better process for doing code reviews? As much as this seems like a culture issue, are there any tools that might be helpful?