I'm working in a small company - four developers, working on a variety of projects. We've been looking at what we can do as cost-effective methods of process improvement, and an idea came up.

Given what we do, we often have single developers working on parts of a system, independently of the other developers. This can have a number of negative affects:

1. A developer might not be fully aware of the context in which a change is being implemented, and make the change in a way that will meet the current customer's needs, but will break functionality that other customers depend on.
2. A developer might make a change that breaks the current architectural design, introducing a dependency that will cause problems in future development.
   1. Other developers might not be aware of how the system has changed, in areas that they have not worked on.

We've talked about doing code reviews, as a way of dealing with these issues. But we've not had much success when we tried. It takes a lot of time to prepare a change for a code review, and it takes everybody out of production while the review is being performed. And the benefits of any review we've tried has been minimal.

We're using Subversion (with TortioseSVN) as our VCS. I've been looking at the SubVersion CommitMonitor tool, and wondering whether it might work as a sort of poor-man's code review. It lists every commit made on the repository, allowing someone to see the changes that have been made, the log messages made for that change, the files that were included in the change, and the specific lines in each file that were changed.

Rather than scheduling a meeting, trying to get everybody together to review every change, we could just have every developer review every other developer's commits, at whatever time was convenient. This would keep every developer abreast of what changes were being made elsewhere in the system, and would have every change reviewed for customer conflicts and design consistency, at a fairly low cost.

If someone saw a problem with the code that was being checked in, he could discuss it with the developer who did the commit, or more likely, schedule a meeting to discuss how the new feature could be implemented in a way that would not impact other users or screw up the architecture.

Anyone else doing anything like this, using commit monitors for such a purpose?