Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 22, 2013 at 8:13 comment added sleske @Alex: You need to agree on a workflow as a team. If a dev then just blatantly ignores it, you have a people problem, and no technology will solve that.
Jan 10, 2013 at 20:08 comment added svick @BrianKnoblauch Well, according to Code Complete, reviews are actually more efficient than tests.
Jan 8, 2013 at 14:05 comment added Erik Reppen This. If a tool's not working, chuck it. That said, git doesn't strike me as that hard to use. Even veterans are going to trip up on new version control if they don't spend some time learning it or at least memorize by rote the 1-3 easy things they need to be able to do with it. And with a rookie you should definitely sit down and make sure they understand what's going on.
Jan 8, 2013 at 12:37 comment added Brian Knoblauch @Doc Brown - One could argue that, but you'd be just plain wrong. :-)
Jan 8, 2013 at 10:09 comment added Alex @ott-- I just heard a story about a dev who left after committing a horrible mess of a fix and commenting out all the Asserts in his unit tests. Tests succeed by default so took a while to notice the issue!
Jan 8, 2013 at 7:02 comment added Doc Brown @BrianKnoblauch: one could argue that the opposite is true, too. Ideally, you should have both.
Jan 7, 2013 at 22:03 comment added ott-- Unit tests don't help if they're written by the same <insert your fav 4 letters here> as the unit code.
Jan 7, 2013 at 21:28 comment added jgauffin yeah. That's why I mentioned the alternatives. Code reviews is better than nothing. Not being able to version the code is a pain no developer should be exposed to.
Jan 7, 2013 at 21:25 comment added Brian Knoblauch This. If you're committing without unit and build tests, having a code review requirement is an imperfect bandage.
Jan 7, 2013 at 21:24 history answered jgauffin CC BY-SA 3.0