_chrismay, 4 months ago

@schizanon ^ or invest in group learning.

My teams that have learned together have transformed into amazing teams.

schizanon, 4 months ago

@_chrismay I'm a big fan of "code-presentations", I just don't think they should block a merge.

_chrismay, 4 months ago

@schizanon OH TOTALLY!!!

I was thinking of something outside of the typical development cycle.

The best experience I had was a book club within my team. We met once a week to discuss a programming book, and people grew like weeds.

argv_minus_one, 4 months ago

@schizanon

My code is usually only reviewed by me, but I have gotten actual code review when submitting PRs to open-source projects, and it is nice to have that sanity check and occasional insightful advice. CI can't do that.

Code review can, however, be anxiety-inducing, I guess because I'm not used to having my work scrutinized.

schizanon, 4 months ago

@argv_minus_one in my experience it's ineffective at improving quality, and it creates process burden on developers. It causes delays in merging PRs which leads to more conflicts.

It's always good to have communication, and collaboration, but code-review ain't that. Better to have better planning meetings do that the right code gets written in the first place, or "code presentations" where the developer discusses the changes with the whole team to share knowledge.

flowchainsenseisocial, 4 months ago

@schizanon

1. I guess you've not seen it done right
2. Deffo +1
3. Always , + a support infrastructure
4. Nope. Change the system Cf. Deming's 95/5

schizanon, 4 months ago

@flowchainsenseisocial if I haven't seen it done right in over 20 years I think it should be replaced with something that's easier to get right

flowchainsenseisocial, 4 months ago

@schizanon Like ensemble development? ;)

schizanon, 4 months ago

@flowchainsenseisocial like better CI

flowchainsenseisocial, 4 months ago

@schizanon No point integrating stuff that's wrong, buggy, broken. Continuously or otherwise.

schizanon, 4 months ago

@flowchainsenseisocial if wrong buggy broken code integrates then your integration tests need to be improved.

flowchainsenseisocial, 4 months ago

@schizanon Could be.

flowchainsenseisocial, 4 months ago

@schizanon Or real QA and ZeeDee.

schizanon, 4 months ago

@flowchainsenseisocial my hotter take is that there should be two PRs to every feature; one for the tests, and one for the implementation, ideally done by specialized engineers. Code review becomes the back and forth between these two engineers.

If you can't test for it, it doesn't matter.