it took me a couple teams and some patient mentoring to get the picture. if everyone is playing along its a total joy.
when posting the review, you try to eliminate as much of the cruft as possible.
when reviewing code, sit down, you're actually going to read it for understanding.
your mutual goal is to improve code and product quality. if after a few passes something seems wrong, or unclear you raise it. now the two of you get to have a pleasant discussion about what the right thing to do is. maybe some rework. maybe just a comment about unhanded error conditions. maybe nothing.
if someone raises an issue that not important either way, just change it to save time. and don't raise something unless you think its important. so, if you both think its important, you can have a discussion and reach consensus.
i think thats the real problem, that somewhere along the way the consensus culture got lost. that was a really important thing.
when posting the review, you try to eliminate as much of the cruft as possible.
when reviewing code, sit down, you're actually going to read it for understanding.
your mutual goal is to improve code and product quality. if after a few passes something seems wrong, or unclear you raise it. now the two of you get to have a pleasant discussion about what the right thing to do is. maybe some rework. maybe just a comment about unhanded error conditions. maybe nothing.
if someone raises an issue that not important either way, just change it to save time. and don't raise something unless you think its important. so, if you both think its important, you can have a discussion and reach consensus.
i think thats the real problem, that somewhere along the way the consensus culture got lost. that was a really important thing.