4 ms·
Does that require checking all commits though? That sounds like micro-management which is a massive morale killer. Also; the team should self-organise on quali
by ErrantX 9y ago
Does that require checking all commits though? That sounds like micro-management which is a massive morale killer.
Also; the team should self-organise on quality and help each other improve. I set the quality expectation and get enough data to understand their progress against that expectation (FWIW: I've always found a teams expectations sit higher than mine - which is as it should be to help motivation).
- patmcc 9y ago>>>That sounds like micro-management which is a massive morale killer. I could see that if all commits go through your boss or something, but lots of places do peer-based code review. So have another developer check on your stuff and you check on theirs (or round robin it, or two on one, or whatever). This helps in a lot of ways - maybe they'll catch something wrong, maybe it'll trigger a good idea in them, maybe they'll just be more familiar with a part of the code they hadn't seen much of before. And it honestly doesn't take that long; code that can be written in an hour can usually be checked in five or ten minutes.
- ErrantX 9y agoYes I suspect that's the misunderstanding; I was approaching this from a "boss" perspective, not a peer one. Peer-based reviews are critical.