That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than explaining the issue and saying what needs to be done instead.
Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes “non-shit”(using your terminology) code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?
Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.
I don’t need to explain the issue, that’s what the issue report does
I’m sure every project is a little different. The one I maintain has well over 1000 merged PRs now (2000 if you count the old repo), and I’d be dead if I did even 1/4 of the work contributors do
Plus, even maintainers must have a code review and functional testing on their PRs, so doing the work yourself doesn’t relieve the human workload that must be done. It actually increases total maintainer effort to do the work yourself
I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.
But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?
The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.
That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than explaining the issue and saying what needs to be done instead.
Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes “non-shit”(using your terminology) code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?
Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.
I don’t need to explain the issue, that’s what the issue report does
I’m sure every project is a little different. The one I maintain has well over 1000 merged PRs now (2000 if you count the old repo), and I’d be dead if I did even 1/4 of the work contributors do
Plus, even maintainers must have a code review and functional testing on their PRs, so doing the work yourself doesn’t relieve the human workload that must be done. It actually increases total maintainer effort to do the work yourself
I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.
But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?
The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.