[righttoolforjob]

The alternative is to just do what makes sense, without calling it anything. Junk shit like what scrum has become, for example not discussing technical stuff during standup (why the fuck not? that's what our job is about), artificially splitting stories into 2 week boxes (why the fuck should I break down something that isn't naturally breakable?), why create a card for every thing I'm working on (fucking control freak heaven), etc. It's completely juvenile, gaslighting, cargo cult scientology.

Continuous integration => of course, for me, never worked at a place where it didn't happen and that was before agile was even a thing. If I hopped on a project where it didn't make sense though, I should be free to ditch it.

There is no one way to write software that works for every project and there is no one process that works for every project. Just let the experienced folks decide what to use instead of leaning on some bullshit fixed crap process.

[wpietri]

> The alternative is to just do what makes sense, without calling it anything.

You argue in favor of not calling things things, and then go on to call a lot of things things. You demonstrate why we need to name things: to talk about them more effectively.

What makes sense to one person may not make sense to another. I agree that each team should decide based what's right for them based on the people and the problems. But to do that beyond the trivial, we need to name things.

[righttoolforjob]

Sure you can name things, but there is no agreed upon definition of what scrum or agile means, so don't talk about them. They are useless, unscientific terms.