points by Olscore 5 hours ago | 0 comments
Yeah man, the PR-centric lifecycle has to change.
Working on autonomous development with agents and no human code review. The future is human oversight, without humans in the loop. A PR centric cycle is like being in a factory and standing next to a conveyor belt of PRs. Humans can't possibly review properly. They have to take a few steps back and start looking at the entire machine, evaluating the system as a whole.
[–] skydhash 4 hours ago
[–] Olscore 4 hours ago
Yeah bro, it's a broken process. Not a misunderstanding.
[–] verdverm 4 hours ago
pull requests are not going anywhere, if you let claude take the wheel, a company will fail (or never make it), the agents are not that good, your pullboard web copy is a great example
[–] MiroslavPokorny 43 minutes ago
So why bother with PRs at all, might as well just skip the charade and push to master.
Then something is either wrong with your conception of PRs or whatever process you have been submitted to. PR is asking for feedback from people that already understand the software. It's also a learning place for anyone that is not yet familiar with the part being modified. So you have the author, the reviewers, and the learners. Which is three separate sets of people.
The PR review itself shouldn't take a lot of time (10mn is already a lot), because it's either a small change which is easily understood[0] or it's a more complex one [1] that should have a design discussion thread attached. This discussion is orthogonal to the code itself. Both should have a description good enough for the reviewer to have an idea why the change is necessary before looking at the code.
So a PR is an exchange of ideas around a real artifact, the code. If no idea is being exchanged, then it's merely a gatekeeping activity.
[0] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=73b1453e6d87f9af4c47...
[1] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=49a3cbc47f8e721a787e...