I don't whole heartedly disagree with you but I think its grayer than that.
Maybe there were time constraints. Maybe the coder explained that this code was dangerous to his boss but was not grantee the time to fix it.
I think we agree that said code should never have been written, but there are any number of circumstances that place the blame squarely on management. If he explained the dangers of doing it that way but wasn't granted time to fix it (or no manifest was kept), theres little that johnny coder can do outside of their own time.
None of us write perfect code the first time, and we all had to start somewhere. What's important is how far youve come and what you've learned. I think.
You are right. Consider my original assertion (which is past its edit window) amended to read "engineer (or manager who prevented an engineer from fixing)".
If valve doesn't do code reviews, and if pull requests are actually blindly accepted (is that actually a thing? Do people ever actually blindly accept pull requests?) I don't think I have the wherewithal to give a useful response.
>is that actually a thing? Do people ever actually blindly accept pull requests?
Speaking only for myself, I've seen it with internal git repos at companies that have some name recognition. Obviously they'd never want it known that this happens, but it does.
So why does it happen? In the cases I saw, it was usually when people responsible for code reviews had "other things on their plate", and rather than hand off the review to someone else, they just merged it. During heavy pushes to get a build out the door, I saw a lot of this happening. Since I never said anything, I suppose I was part of the problem.
Absolutely. Arguably, that's the main point of the code review -- you're sharing responsibility. If your team scape-goats, it's not going to be a team for very long.