We're currently modifying out development process and I'm wondering if we should try to keep a 100% of our commits peer reviewed.
What is your experience regarding code reviews?
- Do you tend to spend "a lot" of time on them (say 1/2 hours per day), or just skim over for 5/10 minutes max?
- Do you have a fixed amount of time to spend per day/week/sprint/project?
- Most importantly do you think that the target should be for 100% of the code to be peer reviewed or that 100% is not necessary?
Best Answer
We have a 'Code Review' task in each story. Someone ideally not involved in the development of that story will review all code changes associated with that story. It works well.
A lot of time? Not very much, depends on how much code - we're looking for obvious errors, typos, basic logic sanity checking, uncaught exceptions, etc.
It's a quality step that does find bugs, therefore it has some value. Allocating time may not be the best way of doing it - how about if something is fairly complex, it should be code-reviewed?
By the way, it's important that someone else does the code review..