[geofft]

The blog post makes it clear that there's an intended single correct answer to this question, "No, a person who does this specific thing does not exist." It doesn't give room for "Yes, and I think they're right to do so, and here's why" - or even "No, but there's a person who ships their own stuff without review all the time."

I think you could ask it in an open-ended way (though maybe phrased more like "What's the most difficult part of getting code improvements shipped" or "How does your team tend to balance the merits of making big changes" or "What is good and bad about your code review process") and it'd be a fine question.

[BlargMcLarg]

I'll articulate. The question is indeed asked with intent, but to the one answering, it comes across as something that can have a lot of answers as GP shows. At the same time, any answer can likely be interpreted in many ways, too. It opens up a lot of potential variations which, if you're looking for a specific answer and aren't very adaptable, sets the other party up for failure.

It's the same issue which many traditional questions asked by interviewers have. They are at best "okay" when asked with an open mind. At worst, they are beyond worthless and create bad blood, as the other party is set up to fail.

[throwyawayyyy]

To expand on why I think it's a bad question, "Yes, and I think they're right to do so, and here's why" is probably the best response I could come up with, and makes the interview adversarial for no good reason. It becomes an argument about the premise of the question. Putting the interviewer _or_ the interviewee on the defensive helps neither.

Added: I realise I'm being adversarial myself here too :). You are correct, in that the questions could be reworded in better ways. Agree on that!