Communication keeps code reviews collaborative, predictable, and useful. When teams lack trust, shared expectations, or clear responsibilities, reviews can become painful enough that people would rather avoid them. section 7.1 section 7.2
Make communication part of the review practice:
- Agree on team expectations and clarify what each participant is responsible for before reviewing. section 7.2
- Write comments that provide clarity, advance the conversation, or help the team improve; avoid unsupported better implementations and personal hostility. section 6.0
- Use automation where it removes repetitive judgments, while preserving human discussion for context and collaboration. section 7.2
- After an emergency, communicate what happened and record participants, actions, deviations, temporary access, affected tools, timing, and justification. section 10.2.4
A constructive review comment
Replace an unsolicited alternative implementation with a comment that explains the concern and invites discussion. The goal is to improve the codebase together rather than win an argument. section 6.0
Figure 11.1 A comparison of pair programming to code reviews
Compare pair programming and code reviews to choose complementary ways to improve communication, collaboration, code quality, and knowledge sharing. section 11.1
