lately i’ve been noticing that code review quality says more about a team’s habits than the diff itself. some teams use reviews to catch real issues, and some just use them to prove they looked at it.
has anyone else seen that split? the odd part is that both can look “professional” from the outside until you actually live with the code for a month.
“Professional” reviews that are basically rubber stamps usually have one tell: nobody ever asks for a tiny, concrete test or a failure case. It’s all style nits and “LGTM” vibes, and then a month later you’re debugging behavior nobody ever described in words. Have you seen teams where the habit is to require a short “what could break / how I checked” note in the PR description, or does that just get ignored in practice?
:: Copyright KIRUPA 2024 //--