[burnt-resistor]

One key process advantage Meta has is that all commits (diffs) require review by someone other than you, preferably supported by added tests and tests passing (whether locally or by automated test infrastructure). It gets more complicated when testing and reducing risk of deploying infrastructure and client platform code rather than pure service-oriented software running as part of an app.

[bananapub]

yes, everyone who cares about code quality should do that, that was what I'm talking about - even after automated tests, and automated linting, 10k is a huge amount of code for one person to coherently review each day.

[burnt-resistor]

That's absolutely true. Not arguing with that. It's absolutely absurd.

The point of requiring others to review code is it essentially eliminates cowboy coding and incomprehensible crap because another person/people puts their credibility on the line when they sign-off. It doesn't devolve into "trust me, bro, just rubber stamp it" because of the seriousness, professionalism tech culture.