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

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.

	▲	anonymars 10 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It sounds horrible to be interrupted constantly. I can't imagine they'd be particularly thorough reviews
	▲	duskdozer an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Why would I care if my code is reviewed quickly? If the answer is some variant of "I get punished if I don't have enough changes merged in fast enough," that's not helping. From the other side, it's having someone constantly breathe down your neck. Hope you don't get in a flow at the wrong time and need to break it so Mr. Lumbergh doesn't hit you up on Teams. It just reeks of a culture of "unlimited pto," rigid schedules, KPI hacking, and burnout.

▲

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

Well, there's a reason I'm no longer working there :)

But some people will put up with a lot for half a million dollars a year.

	▲	duskdozer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ahh, that would do it. I don't think I have it in me, but I get it.

▲

IshKebab an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sounds kind of amazing to me. 4 hours is a bit ridiculous, but I wish we had some kind of automated system to poke people about reviews so I don't have to. It's doubly bad because a) I have to do it, and b) it makes me look annoying.

My ideal system (for work) would be something like: after 2 days, ask for a review if the reviewer hasn't given it. After a week, warn them the PR will be auto-approved. After 2 weeks, auto-approve it.