You can check it out here.
Recently at InfluxDB we discussed how code reviews fit in during the various stages of development. It’s great to see the team reach consensus about how we should develop software. It made me think more deeply about why I remain a big believer in the code review process.
In my last blog post I explained why writing design documents is such a powerful approach to building well-engineered systems. But what should one document? When it comes to software, if one documents too much, the content of the documentation can become inaccurate very quickly, and inaccurate documentation is quickly ignored.
Many software engineers never write design documents. Design documentation takes time, and implementations often proceed so far without any documentation that if it happens, it’s an act of recording what has been done — a tedious task at the best times.
Many software engineers argue “the code exists, it’s running, it’s working, let’s move on and build the next thing.”
My father worked for many years in QA at Beckman, an American medical instruments firm. His job was to ensure that newly-manufactured centrifuge rotors would hold up when spun at thousands of RPMs. He used to tell me that the Beckman philosophy could be summarised in one sentence — “There is no substitute for quality”.
As technical lead at Loggly, responsibility for a well-engineered infrastructure ends with me. And one way to ensure the system is designed and implemented well is to stay as close as possible to the code, ensuring that the team and I write quality software.
But it can be difficult to complete the design and implementation of the features I am responsible for, ensure that what the team produces is well-implemented, and understand every line of code — there is only so much time in the day.