Mandatory code reviews are about politics and efficacy. There's many people in the programming profession who maintain the appearance of producing a lot of software. However, when you view their large number of commits, you see they do very little or nothing at all. These people don't want their competitors creating a lot of software so they will try to manipulate the politics towards a belief that in all cases:
1. a high volume of very small commits are better than a low volume of large commits regardless of the functionality they provide.
2. Number of commits is an effective metric for productivity and contribution.
3. very small amounts of code are much better than large amounts of code regardless of the functionality it provides. Code is evil, so the person that produces less of it is more saintly.
4. mandatory code reviews will find lots of bugs. Naturally, they turn into complaints about spaces and formatting. EVERY TIME.
These are only true in a very limited set of circumstances. One example is when working in maintenance on an existing project. Small changes are appropriate because the product is finished.
The reality is they are trying to prevent productivity and efficacy of other developers, just as a business would try to increase the costs of their competitors down the street. PHBs aren't able to understand the impact of commits and new code, and will judge productivity by number of commits, large or small, and code review complaints rather than large amounts of working, tested software. Less scrupulous people definitely try to take advantage of this in a political corporate environment.
1. a high volume of very small commits are better than a low volume of large commits regardless of the functionality they provide.
2. Number of commits is an effective metric for productivity and contribution.
3. very small amounts of code are much better than large amounts of code regardless of the functionality it provides. Code is evil, so the person that produces less of it is more saintly.
4. mandatory code reviews will find lots of bugs. Naturally, they turn into complaints about spaces and formatting. EVERY TIME.
These are only true in a very limited set of circumstances. One example is when working in maintenance on an existing project. Small changes are appropriate because the product is finished.
The reality is they are trying to prevent productivity and efficacy of other developers, just as a business would try to increase the costs of their competitors down the street. PHBs aren't able to understand the impact of commits and new code, and will judge productivity by number of commits, large or small, and code review complaints rather than large amounts of working, tested software. Less scrupulous people definitely try to take advantage of this in a political corporate environment.