• notabot@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    If you’re the reviewer you share responsibility if there’s an issue with the PR. Hopefully your teams culture is such that issues like that are treated as a learning experience, rather than a reason to pile on the individuals involved.

    • ATPA9@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      If you have someone on your team that creates 6k PRs with AI then you are in a loose-loose situation anyways. If you do a thorough review you will be done just in time for the next one and you will get in trouble for not getting your own shit done. So gambling on the PR is probably your best shot at survival.

        • besbin@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          “why don’t you have an AI checking that review?” That’s the reply I have heard from a big tech company thread. They will force you to be the one who take the fall when AI fail but will also shit on you for not using AI. That’s the whole point of the system.

      • notabot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        If it can’t be sensibly be reviewed, reject it for that reason. Have them, or their agent, break it down into smaller, self contained, PRs.

    • besbin@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      If the company allowed people to use AI slop what makes you think they would have a culture to push back again that. Working in the bay right now and the culture have always been “move fast break a lot”