|
|
|
|
|
|
by valmarket
1862 days ago
|
|
|
This only works if the team has a very high standard and some self restraint. Otherwise notorious code churners who are addicted to a high commit count plow through the code base, regardless of whether they are area experts or not. If you contradict them, they cite the common ownership rule and paint you as a non-team-player. If they introduce bugs into the release and you point it out, you are the villain again. All in all, many of these shared ownership code bases are a breeding ground for politics that suffer from the tragedy of the commons. |
|
|
I personally would either point it out or actually leave the project.
We don't have to accept every shitty job as Software engineers.
Unfortunately it takes time to experience and see those issues and to learn to handle them properly.
I do prefer sustainable development and at least my track record shows that it is paying off: high security, high trust in the system, stress-free oncall etc.
If I can't sit in a beer garden on a nice august afternoon a little bit early because everything is falling in peaces I have done something wrong. Not saying that I'm spending all my time not working just saying to have the freedom to be more flexible in when and how I work.
This does demand pushback to management if someone outside of your team starts to sell things with deadlines without asking you.