this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
-9 points (40.0% liked)

Programming

27127 readers
285 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
UlrikHD@programming.dev
bugsmith@programming.dev
Spyro@programming.dev
-9
Stop Using Pull Requests (a4al6a.substack.com)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by codeinabox@programming.dev to c/programming@programming.dev
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TL;DR

  • Pull requests were designed for open source contributions from untrusted strangers. Applying them to trusted teams is a category error.
  • Peer-reviewed research shows code review’s primary value is knowledge transfer, not bug detection. Less than 15% of review comments relate to actual bugs.
  • Async PR workflows mean your code spends 86-99% of its lead time waiting. One organisation spent 130,000 hours in a single year waiting on PRs that received zero comments.
  • DORA research across 36,000+ professionals shows trunk-based development correlates with dramatically higher software delivery performance, and faster code reviews alone improve performance by 50%.
  • The alternative is T*D: Test-Driven Development (build quality in), Trunk-Based Development (integrate continuously), and Team-focused Development (review during creation, not after).
  • The transition is gradual: optimise PRs first, adopt Ship/Show/Ask, then move to pairing and trunk-based development as trust and automation mature.-
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I hate having to harass people to review my PRs too but getting rid of them entirely seems insane to me. Most of the issues with pull requests can be sourced more to the size of changes rather than their existence. If you can keep your PRs small enough that someone can review it in 5-10min then things get a lot easier for everyone but deleting the step entirely means nobody is watching what's being submitted

Like, you might have someone working on something in a new codebase but misunderstanding the architecture or just going in the wrong direction in general and a review is the best way to correct course before getting too far in

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago

I agree. What we need is better PR workflows, not getting rid of review entirely. That's dumb.

[–] Tamo240@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

Like, you might have someone working on something in a new codebase but misunderstanding the architecture or just going in the wrong direction in general and a review is the best way to correct course before getting too far in

I think the article is suggesting this person should be pair programmed with until they understand the architecture and can be trusted to contribute correctly, and I actually kind of agree - it always feels terrible to tell someone a PR they've worked on possibly for days is completely the wrong direction, and arguably this is already 'too far in' if they're going to need to essentially start again.

Intervening earlier in the process should lead to less wasted effort overall, but people often seem to treat pair programming like its two people at 50% efficiency, when it actually saves a lot of cycle time on reviewing code.