Effective Code Reviews with Conventional Comments
You need to be signed in to add a collection
Can "Conventional Comments" transform code reviews from frustrating experiences into productive collaborations? Paul Slaughter shares his experience developing and practicing "Conventional Comments", a structured approach to improving code review communications through labeled feedback. The conversation explores clear communication patterns with labels (e.g. 'suggestion:', 'issue:' or 'question:'). Paul and Adrienne discuss the importance of empathy in the review process, the balance between politeness and efficiency, and how GitLab's Code Review Weekly Workshops have helped normalize review experiences across their remote teams. The interview highlights that effective code reviews depend not just on technical evaluations but on thoughtful communication that acknowledges developers' emotional investment in their work while fostering a culture of collaborative ownership.
Transcript
Can "Conventional Comments" transform code reviews from frustrating experiences into productive collaborations?
Paul Slaughter shares his experience developing and practicing "Conventional Comments", a structured approach to improving code review communications through labeled feedback. The conversation explores clear communication patterns with labels (e.g. 'suggestion:', 'issue:' or 'question:').
Paul and Adrienne discuss the importance of empathy in the review process, the balance between politeness and efficiency, and how GitLab's Code Review Weekly Workshops have helped normalize review experiences across their remote teams. The interview highlights that effective code reviews depend not just on technical evaluations but on thoughtful communication that acknowledges developers' emotional investment in their work while fostering a culture of collaborative ownership.
About the speakers
Senior Developer Advocate at Cisco & Author of "Looks Good To Me: Constructive Code Reviews"