> No it isn’t. Fake work, synchronization, and context switching are all separate problems
Context switching is a problem because it...kills velocity. Fake work is a problem because it kills velocity. You're saying it's time that could be better spent elsewhere, but trying to make it sound wider. I disagree with the premise.
Synchronization is a new word, unrelated to what you originally wrote.
> How many times have you gone back to address review comments and introduced a regression because you no longer have the context in your head?
Never? I am not unable to code in a branch after a few days away from it. If I were, I would want reviews for sure! Maybe you have had reviews where people are suggesting large, unnecessary structural changes, which I agree would be a waste of time. We're just looking for bug fixes and acceptably readable code. I wouldn't want reviewers opining on a new architecture they read about that morning.
I guess they say never, because if you have descriptive commit messages and write good PR description, it's easy to regain the context surrounding the change. It's all about communication, both to others and your future self.
Context switching is a problem because it...kills velocity. Fake work is a problem because it kills velocity. You're saying it's time that could be better spent elsewhere, but trying to make it sound wider. I disagree with the premise.
Synchronization is a new word, unrelated to what you originally wrote.
> How many times have you gone back to address review comments and introduced a regression because you no longer have the context in your head?
Never? I am not unable to code in a branch after a few days away from it. If I were, I would want reviews for sure! Maybe you have had reviews where people are suggesting large, unnecessary structural changes, which I agree would be a waste of time. We're just looking for bug fixes and acceptably readable code. I wouldn't want reviewers opining on a new architecture they read about that morning.