• Vietcongster (unregistered)

    So, PM overly zealous to The Rules and not a clue about what she is doing? So common it doesn't even count as a WTF anymore.

    Maybe the WTF was that gum popping which made her look like a teenage in the narrative.

    Or maybe the fact that I'm frist.

  • Thaumatechnician (unregistered)

    Uh, what's the problem with "This issue was resolved on commit #nnn?" It's how we do it where I work.

  • Bitter Like Quinine (unregistered)

    Fix the root cause. Close that ticket. Ignore the other issue.

    If anyone raises the subject of the other ticket, ask them to reproduce the problem.

    I had a boss raise a stink over us ignoring his ticket ("billing system not displaying latest additions") to work on a higher priority one ("extract to billing system falling over"), arguing that surely it didn't require ALL (i.e. both) of us to work one ticket. Fortunately, we managed to fix the first problem before the mandatory net-meeting to discuss what should we be doing about his "BS issue" (no really, that's what he called it).

    After the obligatory 5 minute chew-out over "properly managing resources", we got around to him sharing his screen to demonstrate the problem. About 10 minutes of helpless fiddling later, my boss grudgingly decided it must have been a "caching issue" and no further action was necessary. I only barely stopped myself from remarking that it looked like the proper amount of resource had been allocated after all!

  • DocMonster (unregistered)

    I find stupid policies to be worse than none at all. Things like using source control or tagging commits is common sense but it seems every place has their own half-assed idea of what's the "best" way to handle things like including tickets, branching, merging, deploying, etc. It gets really annoying when Company A does it one way that's sane, and Company B wants it done a completely different way that boggles the mind and refuses to listen to anything that might improve. Same with tools, I've found. I've seen so many places that are like "We use TFS because we are a Microsoft shop" when Git is now completely integrated with Visual Studio, Microsoft uses it internally and it's just worlds better and more flexible. Yet no, they use TFS with the old SourceSafe mentality of checking out a file, and then nobody else can edit it and you have to remember to check in, etc.

    Source control and tracking commits isn't supposed to be hard, people.

  • Chris Hennick (google)

    I can think of a workaround, if the commits are reviewed before being merged into trunk...

  • Chris Hennick (google)

    Or if one could manage to hide from Cindy which files were the unit tests...

  • getwiththetimes (unregistered)

    "Cindy gets a little OCD about this stuff." is not an appropriate phrase to use in the year 2016.

    If we're going to be PC about everything else, we should at the very least be PC about debilitating mental illnesses.

  • lordofduct (unregistered)

    So wait... what if Ann Marie fixes a bug that fixes another ticket, and doesn't know the other ticket and the bug fixed are related at all. You can't commit a fake breaking code, as you don't know it's necessary... otherwise you'll end up with 2 commits for a single bug.

  • guest (unregistered)

    nut sure exactl yhow this stuff works but wouldn't it work 1.fix one issue and commit. 2. after that respond "unable to reproduce the bug" on other and close the ticket.

  • Nicholas "LB" Braden (github)

    Yeah, that gum chewing/popping would drive me up the wall - my sister and I both have Misophonia

  • fragile (unregistered)

    One ticket, one commit with descriptions as concise as possible?

    And that's a good thing?

    So the graph looks like:

    "JIRA 91 -- Removed kerberos" "JIRA 90 -- Added concurrency"

  • D-Coder (unregistered)

    Jeez, if this is the worst part of that job position, it doesn't seem bad to me.

  • operagost (unregistered) in reply to getwiththetimes

    You went full retard. Never go full retard.

  • Clint G. (unregistered) in reply to D-Coder

    Yeah me either.

  • Sumireko (unregistered) in reply to getwiththetimes

    yawn

  • Carl Witthoft (google) in reply to operagost

    Don't use "retard." That's totally lame. Don't use "lame." That's really gay. Don't use "gay." That's unacceptably retarded. (with apologies to The Colbert Report)

  • Herby (unregistered)

    Popping bubble gum? Yeah, not very nice. Then again, how do you tell your office mate that the smacking lips of eating food really is objectionable. Drove me up the wall until (thankfully) the offender moved out. Yes, it was that terrible.

  • Sumireko (unregistered) in reply to Herby

    Talk to them like a normal human, perhaps? This happens with pen clickers a lot, and they don't realize it until someone asks them to stop.

  • Herr Otto Flick (unregistered) in reply to Herby
    Then again, how do you tell your office mate that the smacking lips of eating food really is objectionable.

    "Hey <XYZ>, I don't really mind what you do in your free time, but when you're sitting next to me do you mind not sounding like you're eating solid food for the first time?"

  • Herr Otto Flick (unregistered)

    Oooh look, I broke your HTML parser.

  • (nodebb) in reply to Herr Otto Flick

    It's the HTML (in)sanitizer, doing it's merry thing.

  • Vic (unregistered)

    Back in the late 60's I worked as a maintenance programmer on an air defense program. For one problem, my code fix wouldn't work. It turned out that there were two versions of a configuration table (the data was loaded onto the release tape) but only one of the tables had been initialized. So I loaded the missing data and released the code patch.

    The development team (which released major releases) failed to load the table, and then released a "fix" to my change which NOP'ed the code *. I explained that their tests failed because they didn't update the table, but they refused to call back their change. Management insisted that a new problem report had to be created, and I had to patch their patch with the code I originally released.

    • The military didn't trust recompilation, so maintenance releases were done via octal patches to the program image; QA then only had to test what was changed. If the code was recompiled, full regression testing of the entire application was required. Only the once- or twice-yearly major releases were recompiled.
  • Mobeer (unregistered) in reply to DocMonster

    You can use TFS and use Git - Git is an alternative to Team Foundation Version Control (TFVC), not Team Foundation Server (TFS). Also in TFVC you do not have exclusive check-out by default (as was true in Visual Source Safe).

  • Ulysses (unregistered) in reply to Herby

    Ha. Least you didn't have a douchebag who burps like there's no tomorrow, even pushes clusters of them, and farts too. As a bonus, she's useless at her job. Good riddance in both our cases.

  • Brian (unregistered) in reply to getwiththetimes

    We shouldn't be PC about most things that we're PC about. Everybody deserves to be able to have their own thoughts and opinions and be an individual. If you're offended, that's your problem, not mine. BTW, I'm CDO - which is OCD for people who have to have everything in alphabetical order.

  • PWolff (unregistered)

    So Cindy was being On Chip Debugged while that artificial (un)intelligence was still involved in the production processes?

  • I dunno LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯ (unregistered) in reply to Herr Otto Flick

    It's just OCD about closing tags.

    Totally cool, definitely a best practice.

  • Mikey Dread (unregistered) in reply to Bitter Like Quinine

    Like your style, Bitter, I'd probably be trying out that route too.

  • TheCPUWizard (unregistered)

    "Same with tools, I've found. I've seen so many places that are like "We use TFS because we are a Microsoft shop" when Git is now completely integrated with Visual Studio, Microsoft uses it internally and it's just worlds better and more flexible. Yet no, they use TFS with the old SourceSafe mentality of checking out a file, and then nobody else can edit it and you have to remember to check in, etc."

    1. TFS is MUCH more than source control.. so much that in a 3 day training course, about 2 hours is spent on source control.
    2. TFS fully supports using Git repositories as the source control mechanism, if you do not like TFVC [a rational decision is much more importand than fan-boy, but that is another topic] then you never have to even see it.
  • WonkoTheSane (unregistered)

    "No, not chew... pop"

    Bravo on the Chicago reference, intended or not* it mad me happy.

    *Ive not read the whole article yet.

  • bitti (unregistered) in reply to fragile

    "JIRA 91 -- Removed kerberos" "JIRA 90 -- Added concurrency"

    You tried but failed. "--" is unnecessary fluff. On the other hand you missed the hyphen in the ticket IDs. Furthemore commit messages should be written in imperative mood. Nobody cares about what you did, but what the commit does.

    "JIRA-91 Remove kerberos" "JIRA-90 Add concurrency"

  • (nodebb) in reply to WonkoTheSane

    Any and all theatre references in my articles are always intentional ;)

  • Axel (unregistered)

    Why is Jira in all caps? It's not an acronym.

Leave a comment on “Double Play”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article