The problems you describe aren&#x27;t really problems with Code Review per se, rather with the process that&#x27;s enforcing the reviews.<p>The idea of code reviews is that somebody else reads your code and provides feedback. Whether the reviewer is sent a pull request, a list of commits in master or a printout is a matter of implementation.<p>I see a cyclic problem in here: Reviews take lot of time -&gt; developers want to get more done, not wait for a review -&gt; so they send more changes to review -&gt; reviews take even more time -&gt; ...<p>I think the solution is to find ways to make reviews smaller instead. Breaking tasks to smaller pieces that take less time to implement and review. (But not by reducing the # of lines in diff - squeezing several changes into one commit is a sure way to make it harder to review.) Smaller reviews will also be more effective - with large reviews there&#x27;s a tendency for a reviewer to wear off and just skim through the changes.<p>Of course that&#x27;s easier to say than do... it&#x27;s something I&#x27;m trying to do by myself and not fully succeeding.