As codebases get larger, what is being done to ensure that code reviews are done? I mean I hear second hand about the mean comments from Linus Torvalds about RC code quality in Linux all the time. To paraphrase him, RC code should not have as many kernel breaking bugs as they do. And this is in Linux which has a lot of eyes. What about smaller teams?
Code reviews are exactly the problem. Most developers just slap shit together to meet deadline and assume that any errors will be fixed by the review. They do not have the luxury to spend a lot of time doing things "by the book" because if they do, the other developers will look much more productive than they are.
I've been developing software for nearly two decades and I don't know a single developer who cuts corners because they expect things to be found during the code review. The vast majority of poor-quality code comes from managers promising features to customers or upper-management before ever consulting with the developers to see if the promised deadline is feasible. In those cases, the time to perform a code review is so short, the situation is basically just managers breathing down your neck to rubber-stamp an approval. You know this is happening because the manager will often slip up and ask you to "approve" the pull request rather than "review" it.
Larger question of code quality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Larger question of code quality (Score:4, Insightful)