4 min leitura • Guide 560 of 877
How to Improve Code Review Cycle Time?
How to improve code review cycle time?
Improve code review cycle time by setting SLAs (review within 4-24 hours), using GitScrum column subscribers for notifications, keeping PRs small, and rotating reviewers. Track review column age to identify bottlenecks. Teams with fast review cycles ship 40% more frequently [Source: Engineering Productivity Research 2024].
Code review improvements:
- Set SLAs - Time expectations
- Configure notifications - Column subscribers
- Limit PR size - <400 lines
- Rotate reviewers - Spread knowledge
- Track age - Monitor Review column
- Address bottlenecks - Add capacity
- Review process - Retrospective topic
Review SLA recommendations
| Scenario | SLA |
|---|---|
| Normal | 24 hours |
| Same timezone | 4-8 hours |
| Urgent | 2 hours |
| Large PR | 48 hours |
GitScrum review workflow
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| PR opened | Move task to Review column |
| Subscriber notified | Auto-notification |
| Reviewer assigned | Pick up review |
| Review complete | Move to Testing/Done |
Column subscribers for review
| Subscriber | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Senior devs | Complex reviews |
| Team members | Share load |
| Tech lead | Visibility |
| Rotating on-call | Quick turnaround |
PR size guidelines
| Size | Lines Changed |
|---|---|
| Small | <200 lines |
| Medium | 200-400 lines |
| Large | 400-1000 lines |
| Too large | >1000 lines (split) |
Benefits of small PRs
| Benefit | Impact |
|---|---|
| Faster review | Less to read |
| Better feedback | More thorough |
| Easier revert | Isolated changes |
| Less conflicts | Shorter lifespan |
Review bottleneck causes
| Cause | Solution |
|---|---|
| Few reviewers | Cross-train team |
| Large PRs | Size limits |
| No urgency | SLAs, tracking |
| No notifications | Column subscribers |
| Complex code | Better PR descriptions |
Tracking review performance
| Metric | Target |
|---|---|
| Time in Review | <24 hours |
| Review rounds | ≤2 |
| Reviews per person | Balanced |
| Age outliers | <5% over SLA |
Review WIP limits
| WIP | Effect |
|---|---|
| 2-3 | Fast turnaround |
| 5+ | Accumulation risk |
| Per reviewer | 1-2 active reviews |
Improving review quality
| Practice | Benefit |
|---|---|
| PR template | Clear context |
| Self-review first | Catch obvious issues |
| Tests included | Verifiable |
| Small PRs | Thorough review |
Review assignment strategies
| Strategy | Implementation |
|---|---|
| Auto-assign | GitScrum rules |
| Round-robin | Rotate evenly |
| Expertise-based | Match skills |
| CODEOWNERS | File-based |
Review process documentation
| Document | Content |
|---|---|
| Review guidelines | What to check |
| SLA agreement | Time expectations |
| Escalation | When to escalate |
| Best practices | PR quality |