At my last job, whenever a commit wouldn't build, we would blast it into a slack channel with an alert that included the comment and the name of the developer.
Ah yes. Public shaming. The “beatings will continue until morale improves” strategy of code development. Next time, you may want to suggest an evergreen strategy where commits are tested before they’re merged.
At my last job, whenever a commit wouldn't build, we would blast it into a slack channel with an alert that included the comment and the name of the developer.
At one job, we had a garish chicken hat that lived in your office if you were the last one to break the build.
This was in the days before automated CI, so a broken commit meant that someone wasn't running the required tests.
We used to have a git plugin that snaps a picture on every push, which accompanied the "alert". Was fun.
Ah yes. Public shaming. The “beatings will continue until morale improves” strategy of code development. Next time, you may want to suggest an evergreen strategy where commits are tested before they’re merged.
‘Works on my local’
No. Evergreen means CI tests your commit, not relying on individuals to be doing before pushing.
It's mind-blowing to me that any multi-user git repo is set up to allow pushes to main at all.
It was years ago at a small outfit
what a chad