Skip to main content
added 73 characters in body
Source Link
Tulains Córdova
  • 39.6k
  • 13
  • 102
  • 157

For Pete's sake, let the driving member of the pair take credit/responsability for the push/commit. Next time the other member will drive. The "driver" will not do anything he doesn't agree upon whith the co-pilot.

Programming is a colaborative effort. No programming deed is 100% individual. There's no need to be fastidious wanting to reflect that a given push/commit was done by Tom and Harry and not just Tom. The benefits of pair programming are worth overlooking that nuance.

The auditor is right, "pool" accounts should be avoided.

For Pete's sake, let the driving member of the pair take credit/responsability for the push/commit. Next time the other member will drive.

Programming is a colaborative effort. No programming deed is 100% individual. There's no need to be fastidious wanting to reflect that a given push/commit was done by Tom and Harry and not Tom.

The auditor is right, "pool" accounts should be avoided.

For Pete's sake, let the driving member of the pair take credit/responsability for the push/commit. Next time the other member will drive. The "driver" will not do anything he doesn't agree upon whith the co-pilot.

Programming is a colaborative effort. No programming deed is 100% individual. There's no need to be fastidious wanting to reflect that a given push/commit was done by Tom and Harry and not just Tom. The benefits of pair programming are worth overlooking that nuance.

The auditor is right, "pool" accounts should be avoided.

Source Link
Tulains Córdova
  • 39.6k
  • 13
  • 102
  • 157

For Pete's sake, let the driving member of the pair take credit/responsability for the push/commit. Next time the other member will drive.

Programming is a colaborative effort. No programming deed is 100% individual. There's no need to be fastidious wanting to reflect that a given push/commit was done by Tom and Harry and not Tom.

The auditor is right, "pool" accounts should be avoided.