[bspammer]

> Implement X, needs Y and Z, ok that was straightforward, also discovered U and V on the way and sorted that out, here's a pull request that neatly wraps it up

This sounds very difficult to review to be honest. At a minimum unrelated changes should be in their own pull request (U and V in your example).

[tacitusarc]

I work as a tech lead, so I get a lot of leeway in setting process. For small PRs, we use the normal “leave comments, resolve comments” approach. For large PRs, we schedule 30m meetings, where the submitter can explain the changes and answer questions, and record any feedback. This ensures everyone is on the same page with the changes, gives folks a chance to rapidly gather feedback, and helps familiarize devs who do not work in that area with what is going on. If the meeting is insufficient to feel like everyone is on the same page and approves the changes, we schedule another one.

These are some of the best meetings we have. They are targeted, educational, and ensure we don’t have long delays waiting for code to go in. Instead of requiring every PR to be small, which has a high cost, I recommend doing this for large/complex projects.

One additional thing to note on small PRs: often, they require significant context, which could take hours or even days, to be built up repeatedly. Contrast that with being able to establish context, and then solve several large problems all at once. The latter is more efficient, so if it can be enabled without negative side effects, it is really valuable.

I want my team to be productive, and I want to empower them to improve the codebase whenever they see an opportunity, even if it is not related to their immediate task.

[quesomaster9000]

One minor piece of insight from me is about release management vs pull-requests.

As you say it's much easier to schedule a 30 minute meeting, then we can - with context - resolve any immediate nitpicks you have, but we can also structure bigger things.

'Would this block a release?'

'Can we just get this done in the PR and merge it'

'Ok, so when it's done... what is the most important thing that we need to document?'

Where the fact that even after it's merged, it's going to sit in the repo for a while until we decide to hit the 'release' button', this lets people defer stuff to work on next and defines a clear line of 'good enough'

[shakna]

How do you rework a core process, then? If you rework a major unit that touches just about everything... Sharding something like that can break the actual improvement it is trying to deliver.

Like... Increase the performance of a central VM. You'll touch every part of the code, but probably also build a new compiler analysis system. The system is seperate to existing code, but useless without the core changes. Seperating the two can ruin the optimisation meant to be delivered, because the context is no longer front and center. Allowing more quibling to degrade the changes.

[pbh101]

Agree. Another item here that is contextual: what is the cost of a bug? Does it cost millions, do we find that out immediately, or does it take months? Or does it not really matter, and when we’ll find the big it will be cheap? The OP joining a new company might not have the context that existing employees have about why we’re being cautious/clear about what we’re changing as opposed to smuggling in refactors in the same PR as a feature change.

I’m going to be the guy that is asking for a refactor to be in a separate commit/PR from the feature and clearly marked.

It doesn’t justify everything else he mentioned (especially the comments piece) but once you get used to this it doesn’t need to extend timelines.