<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Pull-Requests on dplabs — Software Engineering &amp; Technology Consultancy</title>
		<link>https://dplabs.tech/tags/pull-requests/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Pull-Requests on dplabs — Software Engineering &amp; Technology Consultancy</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-us</language>
		
		
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="https://dplabs.tech/tags/pull-requests/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>Code Reviews: Reviewing Design, Not Formatting</title>
				<link>https://dplabs.tech/blog/code-reviews-design-not-formatting/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://dplabs.tech/blog/code-reviews-design-not-formatting/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Code review is one of the highest-leverage practices in software engineering. Done well, it catches defects before they reach production, distributes knowledge, and improves the overall quality of the codebase. Done poorly, it&amp;rsquo;s a bureaucratic checkpoint that blocks delivery while catching only superficial issues.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The difference is usually what the reviewer focuses on.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2 id=&#34;what-automated-tools-should-catch&#34;&gt;What Automated Tools Should Catch&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The first principle of effective code review: &lt;strong&gt;don&amp;rsquo;t spend human review time on things that tools can detect&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
