Review is the bottleneck in those scenarios - and it's a _good thing_.
AI-gen code is often subtly (or obviously) incorrect. Human eyeballs are the cure. There is no way to go faster without compromising the value of the review.
What I've been super annoyed about recently is the number of times I've seen a completely stupid question on a PR - eg "why are you doing this?" when there's a comment right above that line about the why. Or "where else is this used?" - we all have IDEs and reviewers obviously have access to the code - stop being a lazy potato and check out the code locally.
I try to avoid adding these lazy people to PRs as they create more work than they help. But sometimes they end up on there anyway, because they're "important".
if this is a problem there is a problem in alignment in management or teams.
one team uses AI to create larger volume of work, but another does not use AI for whatever reason.
its really asking for problems.
either both should use it or neither.
if both is not perceived to be ok for quality reasons, then use neither.
Review is the bottleneck in those scenarios - and it's a _good thing_.
AI-gen code is often subtly (or obviously) incorrect. Human eyeballs are the cure. There is no way to go faster without compromising the value of the review.
What I've been super annoyed about recently is the number of times I've seen a completely stupid question on a PR - eg "why are you doing this?" when there's a comment right above that line about the why. Or "where else is this used?" - we all have IDEs and reviewers obviously have access to the code - stop being a lazy potato and check out the code locally.
I try to avoid adding these lazy people to PRs as they create more work than they help. But sometimes they end up on there anyway, because they're "important".
[flagged]