4 ms·
My default workflow is not to the pin the version. The build will only break occasionally and is often trivial to fix. In the rare case it does require signific
by oxfordmale 5y ago
My default workflow is not to the pin the version. The build will only break occasionally and is often trivial to fix. In the rare case it does require significant amount of work, and management is breathing down your neck, you do temporarily pin the version to get out the release, and create a backlog ticket to resolve this as soon as possible.
This workflow ensures any work for minor version upgrade is part of the development workflow. PMs can't deprioritise this work against more exciting shiny product features. If you include this as separate development tickets, it just tends to get deprioritised until it becomes a big chunk of work.
- solatic 5y ago> This workflow ensures any work for minor version upgrade is part of the development workflow. PMs can't deprioritise this work against more exciting shiny product features. If you include this as separate development tickets, it just tends to get deprioritised until it becomes a big chunk of work. Instead of your maintenance work being visible, you're hiding it. You're describing an adversarial culture, one where you need to do shadow work because you don't trust management to prioritize necessary maintenance, perhaps one where management doesn't trust engineering to place maintenance in its proper context. I don't think this is an ideal, I think this is sad.
- oxfordmale 5y agoI am not hiding it, I make it integral part of the development process, as it should be. Treating technical debt as a separate work item is asking for problems.