"Pull Requests create blocking problems as people wait for approvals or merges. This has yielded many new experiments and practices—async pull requests, ephemeral PR environments, and byzantine branching strategies.
I can't help but wonder if we're spiraling toward complexity here for no good reason."
#softwareengineering #developerexperience #pullrequests #continuousintegration
https://newsletter.nerdnoir.com/p/modernizing-extreme-programming
Overview As teams increasingly rely on automation for code quality and compliance, ensuring consistent coding standards can be challenging during the pull request (PR) process. In this article, we explore how to build an AI-powered style enforcement pipeline using modern tools like GPT-4 and CI/CD workflows. You’ll learn how to: Enforce best practices and team-specific coding guidelines
"Often the standards in our chosen medium are so ubiquitous, we take them for granted. They are invisible and unquestioned. This makes it nearly impossible to think outside the standard paradigm."
#softwareengineering #comments #pullrequests #sprints
https://www.iansanders.com/blog/ten-lessons-on-the-creative-process-from-rick-rubin
Well even if the name isn’t familiar, you’ve certainly heard his influence on the creative process as a legendary music producer. I'm fascinated by Rick Rubin ' s approach to the creative process. He’s described his role as a 'reducer' rather than a producer, aiming to strip things down to their
Pull request reviews are like group therapy in the best case, like group insanity in the worst.
Kindness lets you resolve both cases.
December 12
#ZenDevAdvent #git #pullrequests #programming
Image: Unsplash
"Our analysis of objective data led to the conclusion that a high number of changed lines of code tends to increase the review duration with a reduced number of messages, while the number of involved teams, locations, and participant reviewers generally improve reviewer contributions, but with a severe penalty to the duration."
#pullrequests #consideredharmful
https://jserd.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40411-018-0058-0
Code review is a potential means of improving software quality. To be effective, it depends on different factors, and many have been investigated in the literature to identify the scenarios in which it adds quality to the final code. However, factors associated with distributed software development, which is becoming increasingly common, have been little explored. Geographic distance can impose additional challenges to the reviewing process. We thus in this paper present the results of a mixed-method study of the effectiveness of code review in distributed software development. We investigate factors that can potentially influence the outcomes of peer code review. The study involved an analysis of objective data collected from a software project involving 201 members and a survey with 50 practitioners with experience in code review. Our analysis of objective data led to the conclusion that a high number of changed lines of code tends to increase the review duration with a reduced number of messages, while the number of involved teams, locations, and participant reviewers generally improve reviewer contributions, but with a severe penalty to the duration. These results are consistent with those obtained in the survey regarding the influence of factors over duration and participation. However, participants’ opinion about the impact on contributions diverges from results obtained from historical data, mainly with respect to distribution.
LittleMexi
Simon Foster 🖖
N-gated Hacker News
Jon Fazzaro
Sascha Stumpler
Christian Grobmeier