Git Blame exists for a reason, and that’s to find the engineer who pushed the bad commit so everyone can work together to fix it.
Blame the Project manager/Middle manager/C-Level exec/Unaware CEO/Greedy Shareholders who allowed for a CI/CD process that doesn’t allow ample time to test and validate changes.
Software needs a union. This shit is getting out of control.
Scio@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If capitalism insists on those higher up getting exorbitantly more money than those doing the work, then we have to hold them to the other thing they claim they believe in: that those higher up also deserve all the blame.
It’s a novel concept, I know. Leave the Nobels by the doormat, please.
aramova@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Wait, are you trying to say that Risk/Reward is an actual thing?
/s (kinda)
Geyser@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Was there a process in place to prevent the deployment that caused this?
No: blame the higher up
Yes: blame the dev that didn’t follow process
Of course there are other intricacies, like if they did follow a process and perform testing, and this still occurred, but in general…
j4k3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If they didn’t follow a procedure, it is still a culture/management issue that should follow the distribution of wealth 1:1 in the company.
aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 month ago
How could one Dev commit to prod without other Devs reviewing the MR? IF you’re not protecting your prod branch that’s a cultural issue. I don’t know where you’ve worked in the past, or where you’re working now, but once it’s N+1 engineers in a code base there needs to be code reviews.
sundray@lemmus.org 1 month ago
I doesn’t seem unfair for executives to earn the vast rewards they take from their business by also taking on total responsibility for that business.
erwan@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Moreover, that’s the argument you hear when talking about their compensation. “But think of the responsibility and risk they take!”