[Sivart13]

Right, so you gave "cowboy coding" a different name, then.

"Not surprisingly, others understand their code. It integrates well with the code base."

Actually, that IS surprising. You are literally saying that if sic some engineer on a problem and tell them to think really hard before they commit anything, they'll get it right.

Maybe you got lucky and that's working out with the hires you have so far, or maybe your scale is still small enough that new features can be developed in isolation without becoming incomprehensible. But I wouldn't pretend this is a successful process.

[scrabble]

The article also stated that all of the code is peer reviewed and QA'd. So it's not really cowboy coding.

[tbrownaw]

I'd think "you broke it, you fix it" (same developer is responsible for the code all the way thru QA and deployment) with mostly-competent devs would actually lead to very good code. I would also think that trying to limit people's agency (most forms of "process") would reduce quality via lowered morale.

And if your devs aren't mostly competent, the best you'd get from any process would be mediocre code.