I wonder where the reviewer worked where PRs are addressed in 5 hours. IME it's measured in units of days, not hours.

I agree with him anyway: if every dev felt comfortable hitting a stop button to fix a bug then reviewing might not be needed.

The reality is that any individual dev will get dinged for not meeting a release objective.

▲

usr1106 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I worked in a company where reviews took days. The CTO complained a lot about the speed, but we had decent code quality.

Now I work at a company where reviews take minutes. We have 5 lines of technical debt per 3 lines of code written. We spend months to work on complicated bugs that have made it to production.

▲

titanomachy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My last FAANG team had a soft 4-hour review SLA, but if it was a complicated change then that might just mean someone acknowledging it and committing to reviewing it by a certain date/time. IIRC, if someone requested a review and you hadn't gotten to it by around the 3-hour mark you'd get an automated chat message "so-and-so has been waiting a while for your review".

Everyone was very highly paid, managers measured everything (including code review turnaround), and they frequently fired bottom performers. So, tradeoffs.

▲

duskdozer 28 minutes ago | parent [-]

That sounds horrible. I don't know how people stand to work in those conditions.

	▲	Jensson 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Why does it sound horrible to have your code reviewed quickly? There is no reason for reviews to wait a long time. 4 hours is already a long time, it means you can wait to do it right before you go home or after lunch.

▲

ivanjermakov 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm yet to see a project where reviews are handled seriously. Both business and developers couldn't care less.

	▲	eterm 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I worked somewhere that actually had a great way to deal with this. It only works in small teams though. We had a "support rota", i.e. one day a week you'd be essentially excused from doing product delivery. Instead, you were the dev to deal with big triage, any code reviews, questions about the product, etc. Any spare time was spent looking for bugs in the backlog to further investigate / squash. Then when you were done with your support day you were back to sprint work. This meant there was no ambiguity of who to ask for code review, and limited / eliminated siloing of skills since everyone had to be able to review anyone else's work. That obviously doesn't scale to large teams, but it worked wonders for a small team.
	▲	mcdeltat 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Bonus points: reviews are not taken seriously in the legitimate sense, but a facade of seriousness consisting of picky complaints is put forth to reinforce hierarchy and gatekeeping

▲

jannyfer 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At the bottom of the page it says he is CEO of Tailscale.

▲

devmor 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve worked on teams like you describe and it’s been terrible. My current team’s SDLC is more along the 5-hour line - if someone hasn’t reviewed your code by the end of today, you bring it up in standup and have someone commit to doing it.