I would like to add that in the commercial world, things are often no better; in fact, they're often worse. I've held jobs in several companies now, from small to medium to huge -- and while there's often been a desire for review, I've never seen it enacted except for one case where problems were so bad that it was unavoidable.
In other words: Good intentions, but it just doesn't happen unless brownish stuff hits the fan.
Far more common is the kind of "review" that takes place when someone else has to look at the code during normal maintenance. But that typically only touches the narrow area where modifications are originally required; and it is late in the lifecycle of the code, so it's very hard to really "do something about it" if there are problems.
One thing underlying it is, IMHO, that the quality of software is usually determined from external observation: "Does it work?" -- where the question really ought to be: "Does it work, and is it built well?"
Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds