Best practices for closing design reviews: a streamlined approach to effective collaboration

Introduction

Design reviews, i.e. pull requests (PRs), are critical to collaborative development, serving as checkpoints to ensure quality, consistency, and alignment with project goals. Closing a design review signals its readiness for integration and helps maintain project momentum. Following these best practices can enhance clarity, foster team alignment, and ultimately speed up development cycles.

For hardware projects, closing design reviews also involves thoughtful branch management. Unlike software, where branches are often feature-focused and ephemeral, hardware branches usually represent specific hardware revisions, like PCB updates. Managing these branches effectively can streamline collaboration and avoid clutter while preserving important historical context.

1. Ensure review completeness

• Resolve all comments: Make sure every comment is addressed, either by implementing feedback, explaining why changes weren't made, or marking comments as 'resolved.'
• Double-check requirements: Review the original requirements or specifications tied to the design. Ensure that all goals are met and highlight any variances from initial goals.

2. Document final changes

• Summarize key updates: Create a concise summary of the major changes and improvements made throughout the review process.
• Attach supporting material: Include screenshots, test results, or simulations that can illustrate the design’s final state and its alignment with specifications.

3. Verify with checklists

• Use closing checklists: Consider using a checklist to confirm essential steps like code style checks, functionality validation, and documentation updates.
• Run automated tests: Validate automated tests, focusing on new edge cases introduced in this review. Confirm these tests are successfully integrated into the broader test suite.

4. Final peer review and approval

• Request final approval: Ensure that each reviewer signs off, especially on complex or high-stakes design reviews. Use a standardized format for approval, like "LGTM" (looks good to me) or more formal sign-off comments.
• Ensure cross-team alignment: If the design impacts multiple teams or departments, make sure relevant stakeholders are included for sign-off.

5. Address compliance and documentation

• Verify compliance requirements: For designs subject to regulatory standards, confirm that necessary compliance documentation and testing results are included.
• Update documentation: Any updates to user documentation, API references, or internal wikis should be reflected in the design review, easing future maintenance.

6. Manage and delete branches thoughtfully

• Understand hardware branch strategy: In hardware development, branches are often hardware revisions—typically representing a significant version in the physical design, like PCB changes. Each revision usually deserves its own permanent branch.
• Keep release and revision branches: Retain branches that correspond to official releases or PCB revisions for historical accuracy and tracking. This approach allows easy reference for troubleshooting or revisiting specific hardware versions.
• Trim non-essential branches: For feature branches or experimental changes that don't represent hardware revisions, it’s best to delete them after merging to keep the repository organized. Fewer branches reduce clutter and help avoid confusion over active vs. historical branches.
• Tradeoffs of branch management:
  • Keeping all branches: This approach keeps a detailed history of all changes, but it can lead to a cluttered repository. Important branches may be harder to find, especially in hardware projects where multiple, similar revisions may exist.
  • Trimming branches: Deleting non-critical branches after a review is closed makes it easier to locate essential branches. However, this requires clarity on which branches are essential (such as release or revision branches) and which are not.

7. Record learnings and retrospective insights

• Log key insights: Note any new methods, tools, or workflows discovered during the design review that could benefit future projects.
• Identify areas for process improvement: Briefly highlight any delays or bottlenecks and brainstorm solutions. Recording this feedback helps improve future design review cycles.

8. Close with a clear comment

• Provide a closing summary: A final comment summarizing the completion and approval status is useful for anyone revisiting the review in the future.
• Use a standardized closing format: This format could include the final approver’s name, a brief statement of readiness, and any remaining documentation or follow-up tasks.

Conclusion

Closing design reviews with intention and attention to detail not only strengthens the immediate project but also improves collaboration and trust across teams. Effective branch management, especially in hardware development, is crucial for maintaining a well-organized repository that serves both current needs and historical reference. By following these best practices, teams can maximize the efficiency of their design reviews, ensuring high-quality outputs and a more cohesive development workflow.