• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You already stopped Steven in a prior commit.

    Also, if this is an organization setting, I’m extremely disappointed in your PR review process. If someone is committing vendor code to the repo someone else should reject the pull.

      • dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I’ve seen people trade zip archives like Yo-Ge-oh cards useing excel as a source control manager so it could be much MUCH worse

        • littlewonder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Dude, put content warnings on this. I have trauma from shared drives and fucking Jared leaving the Important File open on his locked computer while he takes off for a week, locking out access to anyone else.

        • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah… Usually if you join a company with bad practices it’s because the people who already work there don’t want to do things properly. They tend to not react well to the new guy telling them what they’re doing wrong.

          Only really feasible if you’re the boss, or you have an unreasonable amount of patience.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Usually, the boss (or people above the boss) are the one’s stopping it. Engineers know what the solution is. They may still resent the new guy saying it, though, because they’ve been through this fight already and are tired.

        • Ephera@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Eh, if everyone knows what they’re doing, it can be much better to not have it and rather do more pairing.

          But yes, obviously Steven does not know what they’re doing.

            • Ephera@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Ah, no, I meant a review process. Version control is always a good idea.

            • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Pretty sure they meant to not have review. Dropping peer review in favor of pair programming is a trendy idea these days. Heh, you might call it “pairs over peers”. I don’t agree with it, though. Pair programming is great, but two people, heads together, can easily get on a wavelength and miss the same things. It’s always valuable to have people who have never seen the new changes take a look. Also, peer review helps keep the whole team up to date on their knowledge of the code base, a seriously underrated benefit. But I will concede that trading peer review for pair programming is less wrong than giving up version control. Still wrong, but a lot less wrong.