Are you suggesting with 'Anti-conveyor belt' and 'Reverse QA bottleneck' that the only one testing the code is the person who wrote it? That seems off in my opinion.
Also, does your QA team cycle through the dev side to write tests?
With 6) does that mean squash merge? rebase? otherwise how do you enforce?
Also how do you ensure you deploy something that is tested, vs creating a new version of the code at the time of merge?
How I read the article, nothing happened. I think it is a cautionary tale of why you should probably bite the bullet and press the button instead of doing the "easier" thing which ends up being harder and more expensive in the end.
I've opened pull requests that haven't been touched by AWS for ~9 months (comments or other). Been told (through a back channel) that the team didn't have the capacity to review all the PRs.
Yup (among others). The fact there is such a robust market for additional tooling I think proves that there is a gap in the out of the box tooling for most users.