1) Always do pull requests. No change should make it into a master without someone else’s eyes. Unless it’s a “get out of trouble” surgical revert that really needs to go out in an emergency.
This would have given the author to raise concerns about very duplicated code. We do that all the time with comments like “this could be a bit DRY-er, how about moving this bit to a common place with this other bit in the codebase that also does that”
2) when the author refactored code, he should have deffo asked for OG to review his code. May be his duplication didn’t account for edge cases.
Reviews are great. Make reviews a part of the system. Small, incremental reviewed code, with decent coverage, being shipped multiple times a day by CI, reacting to customer needs is how the best engineering orgs are operating.
He is right about some parts of over accounting for the future. I’ve had that happen to me multiple times.
Same with doing large refactor s of other people’s code. It’s not about code anymore, you gotta ensure they feel good about it too. Esp junior engineers, it has to feel that it’s still their work.
This would have given the author to raise concerns about very duplicated code. We do that all the time with comments like “this could be a bit DRY-er, how about moving this bit to a common place with this other bit in the codebase that also does that”
2) when the author refactored code, he should have deffo asked for OG to review his code. May be his duplication didn’t account for edge cases.
Reviews are great. Make reviews a part of the system. Small, incremental reviewed code, with decent coverage, being shipped multiple times a day by CI, reacting to customer needs is how the best engineering orgs are operating.
He is right about some parts of over accounting for the future. I’ve had that happen to me multiple times.
Same with doing large refactor s of other people’s code. It’s not about code anymore, you gotta ensure they feel good about it too. Esp junior engineers, it has to feel that it’s still their work.