Unified versus Split Diff
&gt; For a large change, I don’t want to do a “diff review”, I want to do a proper code review of a codebase at a particular instant in time, paying specific attention to the recently changed areas,<p>obviously every team and ticket is different, but IMO unless the person doing the review is some sort of principal engineer mostly responsible for the code at large, this does not align with I would personally consider a code review. In my book a general code review is simple sanity check by a second pair of eyes, which can result in suggestions to use different API or use an API slightly differently. If commits in the PR are properly ordered&#x2F;squashed it is relatively easy to review incremental changes in isolation anyway.<p>I guess the complaint author has is really about review <i>types</i>. I do not have terminology ready at hand, but there is run of the mill sanity check review and then there is deep, architectural feature premerge review. The author complains about the latter when most of the code reviews in web tools are of the former variety.