Question

At Kestrel Systems, a mid-sized software firm in Bengaluru, code reviews were once treated as a formality. A developer would finish a feature, send it to a colleague and receive an approval within minutes, often with no comments at all. The arrangement felt efficient until a single unreviewed change to the billing module overcharged nearly two thousand customers in one weekend. In the inquiry that followed, the engineering head, Anjali Rao, found that reviewers rarely had enough context to judge a change and that nobody felt responsible for catching errors. She introduced three rules. Every change had to be small enough to be read in under twenty minutes. Every review request had to explain not just what had changed but why. And reviewers were credited in the release notes alongside authors, so that a careful review counted as real work rather than a favour. The first month was uncomfortable: features took slightly longer to ship, and some senior developers complained that the rules treated them like beginners. By the end of the quarter, however, the number of defects reaching customers had fallen by more than half, and several of the original critics had become the process's strongest defenders. Which of the following was NOT one of the three rules introduced?

Accepted Answer

Changes by senior developers had to be approved by the engineering head

Answer

Each change had to be readable in under twenty minutes

Answer

Each review request had to explain why the change was made

Answer

Reviewers were credited alongside authors in release notes

Which of the following was NOT one of the three rules introduced?

Practise reading comprehension

More reading comprehension questions

More verbal ability practice