| |
| ▲ | zipy124 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeh, 100 PRs a week is a PR every 24 minutes at standard working hours (not including lunch break). That would be crazy to even review. | |
| ▲ | tabs_or_spaces 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most likely
* The rest of the team also reviews
* If you're the founder, chances are that people will just accept reviews without reading much and give you priority in reviews So I can see this happening in a practical sense. | |
| ▲ | iLoveOncall 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I work for a FAANG and I'm the top reviewer in my team (in terms of number of PRs reviewed). I work on an internal greenfield project, so something really fast moving. For ALL of 2025 I reviewed around 400 PRs. And that already took me an extreme amount of time. Nobody is reviewing this many PRs. I've also raised around 350 PRs in the same year, which is also #1 for my team. AI or not, nobody is raising upwards of 3,500 CRs a year. In fact, my WHOLE TEAM of 15 people has barely raised this number of CRs for the year. I don't know why people keep believing those wild unproven claims from actors who have everything to gain from you believing them. Has common sense gone down the drain that much, even for educated professionals? | | |
| ▲ | sensanaty 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't know why people keep believing those wild unproven claims from actors who have everything to gain from you believing them. It's grifters all the way down. The majority of people pushing this narrative have vested interests, either because they own some AI shovelware company or are employed by one of the AI shovelware companies. Anthropic specifically is running guerilla marketing campaigns fucking everywhere at the moment, it's why every single one of these types of spammed posts reads the same way. They've also switched up a bit of late, they stopped going with the "It makes me a 10x engineer!" BS (though you still see plenty of that) and are instead going with this weird "I can finally have fun developing again!" narrative instead, I guess trying to cater to the ex-devs that are now managers or whatever. What happens is you get juniors and non-technical people seeing big numbers and being like "Wow, that's so impressive!" without stopping to think for 5 seconds what the kind of number they're trying to push even actually means. 100 PRs is absurd unless they're tiny oneliners, and even if they were tiny changes, there's 0 chance anyone is looking at the code being shat out here. | |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Reviewing PRs should be for junior engineers, architectural changes, brand new code, or broken tests. You should not review every PR; if you do, you're only doing it out of habit, not because it's necessary. PRs come originally from the idea that there's an outsider trying to merge code into somebody's open source project, and the Benevolent Dictator wants to make sure it's done right. If you work on a corporate SWEng team, this is a completely different paradigm. You should trust your team members to write good-enough code, as long as conventions are followed, linters used, acceptance tests pass, etc. | | |
| ▲ | sensanaty 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You should trust your team members to write good-enough code... That's the thing, I trust my teammate, I absolutely do not trust any LLM blindly. So if I were to receive 100 PRs a week and they were all AI-generated, I would have to check all 100 PRs unless I just didn't give a shit about the quality of the code being shit out I guess. And regardless, whether I trust my teammates or not, it's still good to have 2 eyes on code changes, even if they're simple ones. The majority of the PRs I review are indeed boring (boring is good, in this context) ones where I don't need to say anything, but everyone inevitably makes mistakes, and in my experience the biggest mistakes can be found in the simplest of PRs because people get complacent in those situations. | |
| ▲ | iLoveOncall 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It seems like LLMs really have made people insane. | |
| ▲ | blub a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | (Not the OP) For many years, all the projects I’ve been in had mandatory code review, some in the form of PRs (a github fabrication), most as review requests in other tooling. This applies to everything from platform code, configuration, tooling to production software. Inside a component, we use review to share knowledge about how something was implemented and reach consensus on the implementation details. Depending on developer skill level, this catches style, design issues or even bugs. For skilled developers, it’s usually comments on code-to-architecture mismatches, understandability, etc. Sometimes not entirely objective things, that nevertheless contribute to developing and maintaining a team consensus and style.
Discussions also happen outside and before review, but we’ve found reviews invaluable. If a team has yearly turnover or different skill levels (typical for most teams), not reviewing every commit is sloppy. Which has an additional meaning now with AI slop :) |
| |
| ▲ | written-beyond 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am also skeptical about the need for such a large number of PRs. Do those open because of previous PRs not accomplishing their goals? It's frustrating because being part of a small team, I absolutely fucking hate it when any LLM product writes or refractors thousands of lines of code. It's genuinely infuriating because now I am fully reliant on it to make any changes, even if it's really simple. Just seems like a new version of vendor lock-in to me. | |
| ▲ | almostgotcaught 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | northern-lights 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because he is working on a product that is hot and has demand from the users for new features/bug fixes/whatnot and also gets visibility on getting such things delivered. Most of us don't work on products that have that on a daily basis. | | |
| ▲ | ruszki 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In other words, nobody cares that the generated code is shit, because there is no human who can review that much code. Not even on high level. According to the discussion here, they don’t even care whether the tests are real. They just care about that it’s green. If tests are useless in reality? Who cares, nobody has time to check them! And who will suffer because of this? Who cares, they pray that not them! | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | linsomniac 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >nobody cares that the generated code is shit That is the case, whether the code is AI generated or not. Go take a look at some of the source code for tools you use ever day, and you'll find a lot of shit code. I'd go so far as to say, after ~30 years of contributing to open source, that it's the rare jewel that has clean code. | | |
| ▲ | ruszki 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but there is a difference, between if at least one people at one point of time understood the code (or the specific part of it), and none. Also, there are different levels. Wildfly’s code for example is utterly incomprehensible, because the flow jumps on huge inheritance chains up and down to random points all the time; some Java Enterprise people are terrible with this. Anyway, the average for tools used by many is way better than that. So it’s definitely possible to make it worse. Blindly trusting AI is one possible way to reach those new lows. So it would be good to prevent it, before it’s too late, and not praising it without that, and even throwing out one of the (broken, but better than nothing) safeguard. Especially how code review is obviously dead with such amount of generated code per week. (The situation wasn’t great there either before) So it’s a two in one bad situation. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xixixao 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For comparison, I remember doing 250 PRs in 2.5 months of my internship at FB (working on a fullstack web app). So that’s 2-4x faster. What’s interesting is that it’s Boris, not an intern (although the LLM can play an intern well). | |
| ▲ | 0xbadcafebee 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 50-100 is a lot, but 15 a week should be normal with continuous integration, you should be merging multiple times a day | | |
| ▲ | Veelox 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Where have you worked? I have been at a lot of places and I have never seen people consistently checking in 2 PR/day every day. |
| |
| ▲ | prasoon2211 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | iirc he (or his colleague) did mention somewhere on X that most of the PRs are small | |
| ▲ | philipwhiuk 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | When people do PR counting then I assume they're dependabot-style stuff. |
|
