Can’t help but draw parallels to how working with AI feels like. Your coworker opens a giant impressive looking PR and marks it ready for review. Meanwhile it’s up to someone else in the team to do the actual work of checking. Meanwhile the PR author gets patted on the back by management for being forward thinking and pro-active while everyone else is “nitpicky” and holding progress back.

▲

callc 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m dealing with similar issues.

It’s reasonable to come up with team rules like:

- “if the reviewer finds more than 5 issues the PR shall be rejected immediately for the submitter to rework”

- “if the reviewer needs to take more than 8 hours to thoroughly review the PR it must be rejected and sent back to split up into manageable change sets”

Etc etc. let’s not make externalizing work for others appropriate behavior.

	▲	tyre 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Eight hours to review! Girlie how big are these PRs? I can’t imagine saying, “ah, only six hours of heads down time to review this. That’s reasonable.” A combination of peer reviewed architecture documentation and incremental PRs should prevent anything taking nearly 8 hours of review.