This is a big red flag for anyone.
This doesn’t mean anything. Let’s start with that assumption. Red flag is that one have team of morons ;)
The team I work with was an acquisition and they never did code review. However they are industry experts and are building industry leading software. Code review is more important for large teams collaborating or when less experienced engineers are contributing to a code base and need guidance.
I'm surprised there's ANY anti code review sentiment in here. It's not just for large teams that are collaborating, or production systems. The most value you get from code reviews is having more sr engineers go over code written by new college grads who think they're hot shit. During my first few years in industry, the companies I worked at didn't review my code. Sure, I built lots of nice, resume-worthy things, but my code quality and best practices weren't improving that much. This was before stack overflow and the likes. Once I moved to a company that did reviews, I had a massive growth spurt in the quality of my work. Each check-in took a bit longer, but the improvement in maintainability is overshadowing it by an order of magnitude. Always strive to get reviews from the most thorough and pedantic reviewers. Lose the ego, let them tear you a new one, and you'll be so much better for it. Even if you're highly experienced, you'll still get value from it.
Our product doesn't have much risk for security concerns. Consider the value of code review when you're the most experienced, expert, and knowledgeable in the code. And your team is a few people who are very experienced in the codebase as well. Reviews become rubber stamps. Also precommit lint checks and static analysis can cover a good portion of pedantic reviews. Of course discussion about features and larger architecture continuously happen but we trust each other to implement things the right way.
In that case, it still helps with team comms and knowledge sharing (how X is implemented and that X will be checked-in), as well as record keeping i.e. when someone asks ‘where this line of code came from?’, theres a diff/PR to reference for context.
The commit message generally gives the context for the change. I'm not saying there aren't advantages to doing code reviews every commit but most people gloss over the cost of blocking code from landing until someone approves it. At FB most teams have to do this and are encouraged to make smaller diffs, so you end up having to review 20+ changes at least per day on a normal team. This definitely has a productivity cost.
Tableau. All teams. All day. Everday. Long live #CowboyCheckins!
Raises hand 🖐️ That's not true for the entire company, and some part of the business do code reviews as well. It varies.
Lol, reading the description I thought this is just trolling. But looks like this trap caught us quite a few rogues! Lesson : Always AB test your assumptions.
When I do my personal project I even do my self code reviews.
I think mostly in production all teams does.
Only At facebook.
Nope i work at sap labs before, we use to do there also.