>devs would make conflicting requirements for improvement. Dev A demands change A. Dev B wants change B. A and B are incompatible and neither dev will back down. Management of course refused to help settle the argument.
This was a problem in my previous job. Options I thought of:
1. Get a moderator. This is what we did. He did not just settle disputes - he did more than that. But it's good to have at least this role.
2. Have a total of 4 reviewers review the disputed section. If there is a majority, change it. If it's a 2-2 split, just leave it as is. (Team did not accept this).
3. Disputed code (whether changed or not) should have comments saying this vs the alternative was discussed in a code review. Why? Because if there isn't consensus, over time, people are going to keep changing those lines of code back and forth (some developer who was not involved in the review will decide to refactor - rinse and repeat).
This was a problem in my previous job. Options I thought of:
1. Get a moderator. This is what we did. He did not just settle disputes - he did more than that. But it's good to have at least this role.
2. Have a total of 4 reviewers review the disputed section. If there is a majority, change it. If it's a 2-2 split, just leave it as is. (Team did not accept this).
3. Disputed code (whether changed or not) should have comments saying this vs the alternative was discussed in a code review. Why? Because if there isn't consensus, over time, people are going to keep changing those lines of code back and forth (some developer who was not involved in the review will decide to refactor - rinse and repeat).