|
|
|
|
|
|
by jacques_chester
2727 days ago
|
|
|
> As the old saying goes "when everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible". Here's my rule: You break it, you fix it. > I'd rather see a poly-repo approach, with a designated owner for discrete modules, but where anybody can clone any repo, make a proposed fix, and submit a PR. I'd rather see pairing, extensive tests and fast CI. I see PRs as a necessary evil, rather than a good thing in themselves. If I make a change that breaks other teams, I should fix it. If I can make a change to fix code anywhere in the codebase, I should write the test, write the fix and submit it. Small, frequent commits with extensive testing creates a virtuous cycle. You pull frequently because there are small commits. You are less likely to get out of sync because of frequent pulls. You make small commits frequently because you want to avoid conflicts. Everyone moves a lot faster. I have had this exact experience and it is frankly glorious. |
|
|
I’ve seen this invoked so many times to shirk responsibility though. Someone piles up all kinds of crap in a tight little closet, complete with a bowling ball on top, and the next unsuspecting dev who comes by and opens it gets an avalanche of crap falling on them while the original author can be heard somewhere in the background saying “it’s not my problem.”
This winds up leading to more crap-stacking just to get the work done ASAP and you wind up with a mountain of tech debt.
I like the zero flaw principle where new feature work stops until all currently known flaws are fixed. Then everyone is forced to pitch in and responsibility is shared whether you want it or not.