[gburt]

With some reflection, I think you're correct on the understanding problem.

The problem has always been inconsistent - some code reviews are worth thousands of times more than others - and a determining factor may be how invested the particular reviewer is in that piece of code, how well they understand the surrounding ecosystem and things of that nature.

As a concrete example, it has always been rare that a backend API change PR doesn't get great feedback from the frontend team that is dependent on it. The visibility is a core benefit here and the clear process to collaborate (especially if done early, low cost with individual small changes) is essential to the return on time investment.

For the record, I agree, I think a strong culture of code review is the most valuable process I've added to any development team. In my grandparent post, I was merely drawing attention to a potential spot for improvement, I hope no one took it as against code review as a process.

[szucs]

That’s very true. I’ve seen code review when it’s a bit more relaxed and most of the reviews are comments about style - only a handful of people provide useful comments about what the code does.

In your defence, it’s hard to find out a way to fix a bad code review process with a team. I’m unsure how to really tackle that.