No code reviews by default
I think I largely agree with this article.<p>When I worked for Apple, we had a strict &quot;all code needs to be reviewed&quot; policy, which I had no problem with.  Then, after being there for about 1.5 years, I make a PR, ask two different people to approve it, which they do, and it gets merged.  A week later, the code is released, it looks like my code caused a fairly major bug.<p>My manager&#x27;s manager and my manager had a meeting with me, and told me that this was unacceptable.  I ask &quot;what exactly was I supposed to do differently?  Clearly this bug was sneaky enough to where two other people also didn&#x27;t see it.&quot;  Their response was &quot;the code needs to work, you wrote the code, the code was sloppy. This is your fault.&quot; Apparently they took the bug pretty seriously, since it was actually mentioned in my yearly review.<p>This is fine, I probably should have tested the code a bit better, but it always annoyed me that my &quot;sloppy&quot; code managed to pass code review [1], and yet I&#x27;m the only one to get in trouble over it. If the PRs aren&#x27;t catching bugs and I still am going to get in trouble, then I&#x27;m failing to see why I should bother waiting an hour for someone to look through it.  Instead, why not make it so we can merge quickly, test it quickly, and revert it if something breaks?<p>[1] Obviously I&#x27;m biased here, but I honestly think that in this particular case I was pretty easily the least-liked person on the team, and it was easier to throw me under the bus than anything else.