Comment by Jensson
5 years ago
Could be about incentives then. At Google the code reviews you do are tracked so doing many looks good for your performance reviews, so some people try to be fast with reviews to get more reviews. If you don't get any credit for doing code reviews then I can see it being very hard to get people to do them though.
Also as long as you have a pending review sent to you it shows up as a "you have stuff to do" icon in the google tools until you respond to it, just like if you got a message, I guess that helps as well.
Interesting. We don't track code reviews as far as I'm aware, and we use GitHub so you just get an email if you're tagged as a reviewer.
I would say it's not uncommon to have to wait a day for reviews.
The the first thing to do if you want to improve that is to ensure you track code reviews. Meaning, you can see what changes each person reviewed and not just submitted, and then you can use that data to talk about performance etc. If one person does all the reviews then he should get a ton of credit since that is hard important work. Typically lead programmers do more reviews and juniors writes more changes, so a person doing a lot of reviews is associated with seniority and something to strive for rather than avoid. Also I bet your manager would be interested in that information as well, so maybe you just need to suggest it to them.
There's a huge problem with this. The incentive you are describing isn't to do good code reviews. The incentive there is to do a lot of code reviews. Those two are not the same and while they are not mutually exclusive, just by tracking this metric and rating people on it, you are not giving an incentive for good code review. Only for fast review. But you really want both. You want fast and you want good and thorough.
I completely agree that senior and lead people should be doing more reviews and thus help everyone else, ultimately benefiting other programmers and the whole organization overall.
2 replies →