Innovative Strategies for Streamlining Pull Requests in Development
Written on
Understanding the Distrust Surrounding Pull Requests
Pull Requests (PRs) often come with a sense of unease, and while you may sense an issue with them, pinpointing the exact problem can be challenging.
The Ideal of Pull Requests
On the surface, Pull Requests seem like a brilliant idea. They originated on platforms like GitHub, which facilitated a way for developers to contribute to open-source projects. When a user identifies a bug in a publicly available tool, they can fork the repository, make corrections, and request the maintainers to merge their changes. This process eliminates the need for extensive email exchanges and manual merging, allowing maintainers to evaluate and integrate changes directly within their own repositories.
However, there is a significant drawback: the process can be slow. Although PRs are quicker than traditional email communication, they still lag behind direct edits to the repository. The underlying issue is that while public repositories foster collaboration, they also create an environment of distrust.
The Slow Nature of Pull Requests
PRs introduce asynchronous collaboration, akin to sending emails. The contributor submits their code, and reviewers respond at their convenience. This back-and-forth can lead to disruptions, as contributors must pause their current work to address reviewer feedback, which can create delays. The workflow is often plagued by interruptions and context switches, leading to inefficiencies.
While this model works well in the open-source community, where the need for quality control is paramount, it becomes problematic in private companies.
Why Pull Requests Might Be Ineffective
Many employees find that the PR process within companies can be frustratingly slow. For instance, data indicates that reviewers often take longer than expected to assess complex PRs.
The graph shows a correlation between the complexity of a PR and the time taken for review, revealing a threshold beyond which reviews become increasingly time-consuming.
The reviewer efficiency diminishes as PR length increases. Atlassian's research illustrates that reviewers, on average, spend less time per line as PRs grow longer, which can lead to overlooked details.
The Hierarchy of Feedback
Feedback can range from minor aesthetic suggestions to critical bug fixes. Reviewers often prioritize their comments based on the severity of the issues they identify, leading to a hierarchical approach in their feedback.
Pull Requests in the Open Source vs. Private Sector
In open-source projects, PRs function effectively, allowing contributions without time constraints. However, in corporate environments, PRs often engender distrust, slow down processes, and add little value.
So, how can we improve this process in a corporate setting?
Effective Strategies for PRs in Companies
- Self-Approval for Frequent Contributors: Team members should be allowed to approve their own PRs for routine contributions, ensuring accountability.
- External Contributions: PRs from outside the team should undergo thorough reviews, but these should be limited to non-critical updates to avoid overwhelming the team.
- Self-Review Practices: Authors should review their own work before submission, which can lead to self-improvement.
- Seek Feedback: Developers should engage with colleagues for input on PRs, facilitating discussions that can enhance the quality of contributions.
- Pair Programming: Collaborating in real-time can eliminate the need for formal reviews as the work is continuously vetted.
- Fixing Post-Approval Issues: If a problem arises after a PR is approved, developers should feel empowered to submit fixes without needing extensive review.
Team Review Sessions: Setting aside dedicated time for team reviews can help ensure everyone is aligned and aware of ongoing changes.
By shifting from asynchronous to synchronous communication during the review process, teams can minimize disruptions and optimize productivity.
In conclusion, while Pull Requests are not inherently flawed, reevaluating how we utilize them can lead to significant improvements in efficiency and collaboration.