Make sure you set up a code checklist for each tech-stack. Before pushing the code to git make sure you are following the checklist. Run Code Analyzers like snyk or sonar cube to know about security issues or refactoring issues. This can cover most of the comments from reviewers.

I would say, encourage smaller pull requests so that changes are manageable, and schedule regular review times to prioritize them in the workflow. Limiting the number of reviewers to a couple of key individuals can help streamline the process. It's important to provide context in pull requests, which enables reviewers to understand the changes better and reduces the time spent on them. Additionally, promoting a quick feedback loop allows for prompt communication between developers and reviewers, minimizing delays. You might also consider pair programming for complex features to catch issues in real-time. Finally, recognizing team members who contribute to timely reviews fosters a positive culture around giving prompt feedback.

If code reviews are taking too much time, here's what you should do to boost the process: - Establish clear guidelines on what needs to be done to remove hurdles and prevent burnout. - Make use of automated tools to speed up code review tasks further. - If somehow you decide to skip step two, divide the tasks b/w your team to meet the deadlines further and avoid any bottlenecks. By following these strategies, you shall be able to speed up code review processes without ever losing quality.

Speeding up code reviews without compromising quality requires a shift in focus: - Prioritize critical areas: Concentrate reviews on functionality, performance, and edge cases, letting automation handle formatting and trivial issues. - Time-box reviews: Limit sessions to specific durations to maintain focus and efficiency. - Empower reviewers: Rotate responsibilities to distribute knowledge and avoid bottlenecks.

Invite more people as "required reviewer" - this can decrease the waiting time or bring another point of view if many reviewers are went into action. Try AI tools on the reviewer side - most of the existing language models may do the routine part of the review, leaving humans the core stuff like architectural or best practice issues. Break down the bunch of changes into couple of smaller reviews, as it was mentioned on landing, but just to add - make it targeted to the potential reviewer. UI programmer shouldn't approve gameplay changes, audio integrator should see only audio related stuff. If impossible - describe in the notes who is responsible for each of the part (directories of changes, filetypes, etx) Promote your reviews :)