> My biggest problem with code reviews isn't so much the phrasing(although it is definitely important), but the fact that they almost never has a "done" criterion.
I've actually been experiencing this myself, as I've recently started a job with code reviews, and it's been driving me crazy.
> In my opinion, if new code has nothing objectively wrong with it(no security flaws, no unacceptable design patterns, no foreseen bugs, etc.), then the author has the prerogative to merge the code.
One of my biggest personal issues currently is that I have a fear of hitting the GO button, doing one more look-over just in case. I suppose it's just a lack of confidence in my own abilities, or maybe being anxious that my code isn't up to the standards of everyone else and the code base as a whole.
I've actually been experiencing this myself, as I've recently started a job with code reviews, and it's been driving me crazy.
> In my opinion, if new code has nothing objectively wrong with it(no security flaws, no unacceptable design patterns, no foreseen bugs, etc.), then the author has the prerogative to merge the code.
One of my biggest personal issues currently is that I have a fear of hitting the GO button, doing one more look-over just in case. I suppose it's just a lack of confidence in my own abilities, or maybe being anxious that my code isn't up to the standards of everyone else and the code base as a whole.