text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[1944.08 --> 1946.30] I wish someone had called it out in the PR
[1946.30 --> 1947.42] and I will put in like,
[1947.88 --> 1949.20] in my PR, I will fix it.
[1949.48 --> 1951.06] So it's just like those little tiny things
[1951.06 --> 1955.08] that kind of add to your personality as a reviewer.
[1955.08 --> 1956.92] Like you might be known as that person
[1956.92 --> 1959.72] that calls out your grammar mistakes,
[1959.72 --> 1962.54] which I feel like I used to be
[1962.54 --> 1965.02] and I'm not as much these days,
[1965.16 --> 1966.62] but when I see it,
[1966.70 --> 1968.24] I will sometimes call it out.
[1968.46 --> 1969.90] I think I've gotten that feedback
[1969.90 --> 1971.00] on my review from you.
[1971.36 --> 1974.68] So my PR can attest.
[1976.76 --> 1977.50] I'm intrigued.
[1977.62 --> 1978.98] Do you review differently
[1978.98 --> 1982.08] depending on the level of the person
[1982.08 --> 1983.74] that put in the PR?
[1984.06 --> 1985.36] I like, if you're going in
[1985.36 --> 1987.64] and you're reviewing like a staff engineer's PR
[1987.64 --> 1990.46] versus a associate engineer's PR,
[1990.66 --> 1991.68] do you approach it differently?
[1992.30 --> 1994.12] The reason I ask is that,
[1994.40 --> 1995.70] maybe this is a leading question,
[1996.22 --> 1997.58] say you're a staff engineer
[1997.58 --> 1998.94] and you're reviewing the PR
[1998.94 --> 2001.16] of someone you know is like preferably new.
[2001.54 --> 2004.14] Would you approach that slightly differently
[2004.14 --> 2005.98] in that you might add more comments,
[2005.98 --> 2008.56] maybe more detail as to why you've suggested it
[2008.56 --> 2010.20] because you know this person's still learning
[2010.20 --> 2012.88] or agnostic of level,
[2013.08 --> 2015.10] you approach every PR in the same way.
[2015.74 --> 2016.86] I like to summarize,
[2017.08 --> 2018.66] does it matter who put the PR in?
[2019.48 --> 2020.36] I think it could help.
[2020.56 --> 2022.16] Like if I know that someone
[2022.16 --> 2024.62] is more new to the company
[2024.62 --> 2025.54] or to the team,
[2025.58 --> 2028.98] I usually kind of pepper my review comments
[2028.98 --> 2031.42] with links or like context
[2031.42 --> 2034.24] or even ask like if they want to kind of like
[2034.24 --> 2035.10] jump on a call
[2035.10 --> 2036.74] and we can talk through certain things
[2036.74 --> 2038.92] if they have more like follow-up questions
[2038.92 --> 2040.70] just so it's a little bit more synchronous
[2040.70 --> 2041.98] conversation wise
[2041.98 --> 2044.08] instead of like kind of all over the place.
[2044.52 --> 2047.36] But I also try to leave like good feedback
[2047.36 --> 2050.02] even if like there's a person who's above me
[2050.02 --> 2052.58] and you know run laps on me
[2052.58 --> 2054.16] with like the work that they do.
[2054.48 --> 2056.56] I like to just say like this is great,
[2056.56 --> 2058.44] I learned a lot or you know praise
[2058.44 --> 2059.64] some of the work that they've done
[2059.64 --> 2061.32] because I think it can be easy
[2061.32 --> 2065.26] to just not get that type of feedback as often
[2065.26 --> 2066.42] because you're kind of expected
[2066.42 --> 2067.96] to do that kind of work.
[2068.58 --> 2072.40] So being the least senior person on the team,
[2072.72 --> 2075.40] it's difficult not to like feel intimidated
[2075.40 --> 2078.80] by other engineers when they ask for reviews
[2078.80 --> 2079.66] because you're like,
[2079.76 --> 2082.00] oh, I just I'm early in my career.
[2082.10 --> 2084.20] What do I have to offer to someone else
[2084.20 --> 2085.70] who's been working for like 10, 15 years?
[2085.70 --> 2089.36] But I try not to think of it as that as much anymore.
[2089.92 --> 2092.60] Try to think of it with my current understanding of things.
[2092.86 --> 2095.10] I try to give the best feedback I can to that person
[2095.10 --> 2097.60] because it's always nice to have a second pair of eyes
[2097.60 --> 2099.44] even if they're less experienced.
[2099.58 --> 2101.26] It's always nice to have like fresh pair
[2101.26 --> 2103.10] and then you might see something that you've missed
[2103.10 --> 2105.34] and take it as a learning opportunity
[2105.34 --> 2106.50] at the same time for myself.
[2106.98 --> 2107.34] Definitely.
[2107.96 --> 2109.04] It's a fresh pair of eyes,
[2109.16 --> 2112.02] but also like there might be some very,
[2112.12 --> 2113.04] very senior engineer
[2113.04 --> 2115.46] who's been doing the same thing for many, many years
[2115.46 --> 2117.24] and therefore has got into a habit
[2117.24 --> 2118.68] of doing things a certain way
[2118.68 --> 2122.42] and you fresh bunny rabbit that you are
[2122.42 --> 2125.38] coming in with all the new technological lingo
[2125.38 --> 2127.26] and new open source.
[2127.44 --> 2129.32] Like you might be way more engaged
[2129.32 --> 2131.56] and be way much more on top of the new technologies
[2131.56 --> 2132.82] and ways of doing things.
[2132.82 --> 2134.82] So you might be able to come in and be like,
[2134.98 --> 2136.38] hey, have you considered this new style
[2136.38 --> 2138.12] that you haven't done in 20 years,
[2138.12 --> 2139.30] but maybe it'll be useful
[2139.30 --> 2141.00] and you can teach them something.
[2141.56 --> 2141.78] Exactly.
[2141.92 --> 2143.64] And I usually, when I do make like,
[2143.82 --> 2144.86] oh, you should try it this way.
[2144.92 --> 2147.26] I usually have links to support what I'm saying
[2147.26 --> 2148.64] just to be like,
[2148.74 --> 2151.00] see, like these other people are doing it this way as well.
[2151.24 --> 2151.86] It's not just me.