ron minnich wrote:
nobody cared enough to really do the work
That's the problem - not the solution. Don't build infrastructure to support complacency, build infrastructure to support desirable activity.
I'm not even sure what this means :-)
It means that code needs to be structured well so that it is easy and natural to consistently use good structure.
As opposed to the code being less well structured and having a lot of scaffolding to compensate for that lack of structure. As the code gets messier the scaffolding grows increasingly powerful, and thus encourages doing further wrong things in new code.
//Peter
Gerrit is open for business 24/7
On 12/14/2015 08:08 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
nobody cared enough to really do the work
That's the problem - not the solution. Don't build infrastructure to support complacency, build infrastructure to support desirable activity.
I'm not even sure what this means :-)
It means that code needs to be structured well so that it is easy and natural to consistently use good structure.
As opposed to the code being less well structured and having a lot of scaffolding to compensate for that lack of structure. As the code gets messier the scaffolding grows increasingly powerful, and thus encourages doing further wrong things in new code.
//Peter
Alex G. wrote:
Gerrit is open for business 24/7
Yes. And consistently making our codebase better rather than worse is the responsibility of every developer and reviewer. So fun!
//Peter
-
Alex G. -
Peter Stuge