No it is not. It depends on the codebase - if it is something relatively new, a proof of concept or something that is bound to change soon, there is no point in slowing the development down just because it is “too large to digest”.
If you’re just rubber-stamping in code reviews, why even have them in the first place in that case? They aren’t exactly providing you with any mileage at that point.
Sure but who’s got time for all that aggravation? Especially if it’s not part of the codebase I have to work with personally. LGTM and let it be someone else’s problem.
The correct response to any PR that is too large to digest is to reject it and ask the author to split it up.
No it is not. It depends on the codebase - if it is something relatively new, a proof of concept or something that is bound to change soon, there is no point in slowing the development down just because it is “too large to digest”.
Then saying that you have looked through and reviewed the code would be lying. And that is unprofessional.
Is sitting down and understanding the code in the PR not an option?
I’m not sure what you are getting at.
Clearly they hate efficiencies.
If you’re just rubber-stamping in code reviews, why even have them in the first place in that case? They aren’t exactly providing you with any mileage at that point.
Because not all parts of the repo have this status. Some are stable, well tested and critical.
Sure but who’s got time for all that aggravation? Especially if it’s not part of the codebase I have to work with personally. LGTM and let it be someone else’s problem.