4 ms·
Haha, absolutely, it's a terrible example with terrible design that I pulled out of thin air, but it was just to illustrate the point of how even seemingly inno
by JediWing 5y ago
Haha, absolutely, it's a terrible example with terrible design that I pulled out of thin air, but it was just to illustrate the point of how even seemingly innocuous changes can have major consequences.
- MAGZine 5y agoAnd the original author's point is that you can't possibly happen to foresee all of the consequences, and so the best thing to do is to just ship the change and deal with what breaks. That's the whole point of continuous integration, and that's what the author is trying to push. That you actually move faster by letting people push and fix bugs versus push a change, wait some time for a code review (somewhere 1min...1day), go back and forth on some style things, maybe a the reviewer managed to win the game of "spot the bug," and then ship, and then fix any delinquent bugs. Like, unless if that middle reviewer is doing something that really can't be done elsewhere, it just serves to slow things down.