Hacker News Reader

Comment by pards | Hacker News Reader

> and to ignore my PRs when I don't

PRs should be optional, IMHO. Not all changes require peer review, and if we trust our colleagues then we should allow them to merge their branch without wasting time with performative PRs.

View on HN

There is a difference between a code review and approval to merge/release.

Part of the difference is the idea you can catch all problems with piecemeal code review is nonsense, so you should have at least some sweeping QA somewhere.

I always appreciate an extra pair of eyeballs, even on a one-liner. Everyone's an idiot sometimes.

I’m firmly in this boat too. If it’s a small change I can likely get it reviewed within minutes, if it isn’t small it should have a review regardless.

Trust, but verify. We're only human after all :-)

At $DAY_JOB we need approvals from peers due to industry regulation.

In my experience, US healthcare, that box can be checked at later stages, namely deployment to production. It's a choice to add it earlier.

If it is for checking a box, sure. If it is part of a process that aspires to deliver projects with quality and with somewhat predictable release dates, that seems way too late, imho.

Sadly it often is box checking, code review or not. I'm only stating that there is no requirement in US healthcare that I'm aware of that requires approvals before merging code. Maybe that's not true in other industries. But most regulatory frameworks that I'm aware of are flexible, ambiguous, on implementation details by design.

If you find that outcomes are the same by making approvals optional at that stage, then do so with accompanied justification.

And a great way to end up leaking customer data from a SQL injection or other error that could have easily been caught during a more piece-wise analysis and vetting of the related code nearer to time of writing.

Yes! I once read a great article I can no longer find that talked about 3 types of PRs. Simple ones that you self approve. Ones that you tag someone because you want to spread the knowledge of what has been done. And ones that need actual review. Everything being reviewed is simply unnecessary and exhausting.

SOX compliance audit looks suspiciously at this comment.

No single person being able to make changes to a system is a tenant of that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com