[gurkendoktor]

Large commits getting stuck in review forever, or until they have too many conflicts to be merged cleanly; small commits being over-reviewed for trivial issues because the reviewer wants to prove that they have actually looked at the code.

[aavz]

On the other hand, if you skip code review for major or complicated changes, you end up with large chunks of code that only one person understands.

Sometimes that works out fine, but other times you don't find out until too late that there are major flaws.

[jupp0r]

You can also refuse changes for being too big to review. Creating incentives for small changes seem like a good thing to me, so I don't see where you complaint is.

[gurkendoktor]

As I said, review culture can also create incentives against small commits, because they will often be over-analysed. I've seen this sentiment on the internet, so it can't just be my own anecdata.

https://twitter.com/girayozil/status/306836785739210752

Not to mention trivial commits, like clarifying comments, something which doesn't happen anymore in my current project - nobody can be bothered to go through the review process for that.

I'm not against code reviews, but I prefer casual post-commit reviews for uncontroversial changes.