|
|
|
|
|
|
by james_impliu
2383 days ago
|
|
|
I'm the founder of a startup that focusses on tech debt. (Context: mini survey app that sits in GitHub/Lab so the team can track what needs fixing) To underline the importance of what you're saying - one of the most interesting learnings so far from the data we've seen (~400 developers using it for the last month to log issues in their code/processes, >1,000 survey responses) is that the average developer encountering an issue loses more than twice as much time in Planning and Deployment than in Writing Code. The reason the data shows for this is that when there is an issue in Planning it wastes a very larges amount of time. The other trend we've seen is we ask developers how each Pull Request made them feel (Happy/Neutral/Sad). We have literally not yet had someone give feedback who felt sad! So you can make your team happy just by asking and listening :) |
|
|
Anyway, for any big enough system or module reviews are relatively weak form of attestation. They mostly work as a sanity check and to ensure base level of cleanliness and design.
Better attestation is an automated functional test, best a full proof.