4 ms·
As someone who was part of the small team that used to do our company’s builds before I automated them, I deliberately would not bother reading stack traces and
by thawaway1837 7y ago
As someone who was part of the small team that used to do our company’s builds before I automated them, I deliberately would not bother reading stack traces and try to fix it but would send it back immediately to the dev.
1. It took too much of my time. Since I was doing this in addition to my dev duties, it was not something I could afford to spend time on.
2. When I first started, I would resolve the issues myself. But I soon realized the builds were usually broken by the same suspects. Sending it back to the devs (and also requiring them to buy a box of donuts on breaking the build) put a quick stop to this.
3. Builds were usually broken by people checking in their code in a hurry right before they were done for the day. Calling them and having them fix it after work (as opposed to me having to sit additional hours after work fixing something they broke) very quickly put an end to the practice of checking in your code in a hurry and leaving for the day because you had a dinner to make it to. I don’t want you to miss your dinner, but if it’s important enough that you can’t be bothered to make sure your code is working then you can also wait till the next morning to checkin your code.
- watwut 7y agoAs a developer, 2 and 3 are basicly feedback. If you check in hurry and no one ever tells you it caused a problem, you will slowly unconsciously start believing yourself a god. I never cause a problem with this! Except I do. And as with anything, feedback takes you back to reality. Plus you learn where you tend to make mistakes and thus have a chance to study a bit more about area to learn how to not make mistakes.
- wbl 7y agoDoesn't the development happen on a different branch? Of course I push before I go home: if my machine breaks i want to lose a few hours, not a day of work as well.