Why not find the 'guilty' party, pair with 'em, write the new failing test and then work with them to write the fix?
That'd be the right thing to do if the team was collocated. Unfortunately, this is a distributed project.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Did he say, "pull up a chair"? Electronic mail, instant messages, phone calls...
You were gloating about it being an "evil pleasure" to play contract-lawyer and sue through the courts of team opinion, rather than settle your code disputes quietly with the affected party. It seems most of the replies indicate resistance to your interpersonal approach here. I wonder why?
-- [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
It seems most of the replies indicate resistance to your interpersonal approach here. I wonder why?
There's a lot left out of the story, including meetings, agreements, phone calls, occassional pairing sessions, more meetings, more email, etc. Everyone on the team (well, all three of us) have agreed that good unit tests are essential, but in the heat of battle they get missed. The reaction so far as been "O.K., you caught me. I'll do better next time," which is pretty much what I'd hoped for.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Oh hard luck. Please tell me at least some of the team is colocated.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Oh hard luck. Please tell me at least some of the team is colocated.
No such luck. We get together for a 3-4 hour whiteboard session once a week, and I get together with one of the other two folks once a week for a 3 hour pairing session. We meet up on irc on-demand. That's it. It's far from ideal, but it's the norm around here for teams that assemble ad hoc to tackle a contract.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |