This article describes how following two simple code review rules can make code reviews a great instrument, not a hurdle you have to go through.

Lobsters is a community-driven platform for sharing and discussing links to articles, tutorials, and projects related to technology and programming. Readers can learn about a wide range of topics, from software development and system administration to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. With user submissions, comments, and voting, Lobsters provides a platform for collaborative learning and knowledge sharing among technology enthusiasts.

Lobsters

Two fundamental rules can dramatically improve code review effectiveness: minimize response time to prevent context loss and momentum disruption for authors, and always include explicit 'because' clauses in comments to clearly communicate the reasoning behind feedback. Quick response doesn't mean quick approval, but rather prompt engagement with the change. Senior engineers play a crucial role in establishing positive code review culture through their behavior, as others will follow their example.

Two Simple Rules to Fix Code Reviews

<p>I my opinion, the best way to fix code reviews is to recognize that code review and pull requests is not the same. This article uses the two as if it’s the same, and while pull requests is a way to do code review, code reviews doesn’t have to be done by pull requests.</p>
<p>If you want to fix your code reviews, my take is to do code reviews by pair programming, or at least by a process that involves talking together.</p>
