[blauditore]

> If you have a good team which cares about the project, then you don't really need them IMO.

I strongly disagree. It's not about caring or not, it's about making mistakes.

A human can easily forget to run some test, or generally one step out of many in a complicated procedure, especially if they're new to the project. A reviewer can miss a mis-formed identifier. The more is that automated, the fewer manual steps need to be remembered, and the more safety the project gets. Automated tools like CI/CD should not be considered supervisors to humans, but helpers and safety nets.

That being said, there are certainly cases where teams don't set such tools up because they come with an implementation cost. And depending on project complexity and their use case in general, it may be more economical to do things manually.

[HelloNurse]

Not using automatic tools means using a person to do a computer's job.

Programmers should work on interesting tasks: refine and revise the tool rules, add even more automatic checks, refactor and correct genuinely flagged code.

Refusing automatic check tools means lowering happiness, dignity and productivity, wasting attention and time with bad activities and priorities: following boring and error-prone procedures, finding ways to elude rules and take shortcuts, low-value and tedious detailed code reviews (e.g. discussing indentation instead of incorrect edge cases).