Control procedure status & developer change after change made

Hi @Arjan Sollie,

Thank you for your idea. In the past, we received a lot of feedback on how to deal with control procedures in review. This has led to the current method. You indicate that you do not find this method suitable, but I still miss the exact reason why it does not work for you.

With the example you mentioned, a small adjustment to your process may already solve your problem. In our opinion, the best thing to do in such a situation is to first review the control procedure and after this continue with the development. 

Alternatively, you can reset the control procedure yourself with the task 'Set status to development' and fill in yourself as a developer. The reason we don't set the developer by default, is because we feel that editing a template does not necessarily make you responsible for the complete control procedure. 

For instance, if developer B fixes a typo in a template with 10.000 lines written by developer A, developer B should not by default be marked as the responsible developer for the entire control procedure.

Hey @Jeroen van den Belt ,

I agree that the perfect world would be a developer makes and adjustment, it gets reviewed instantly and then another developer will make his/her changes. However this is a Utopia that we will never achieve.

Most projects work SCRUM based. Meaning that several developers can pickup tickets that have an impact on the same templates. This would mean that if developer A would make an adjustment, developer B would have to wait until developer A is finished and his/her code is fully reviewed before being able to start with his/her change. As you can expect that is not a preferred scenario.

And as you mention, what you would like to prevent is that a developer will become responsible for code he/she has not written. Therefor I understand this argument. However with the current setup 50% of the times the developer that is marked as the one in the control procedure has not created the majority of the code him/herself. Other developers have made changes in the templates just as well. The result is that during code review this code gets rejected and sent back to the developer that is linked on the control procedure. He or she then looks at the template and the provided comment(s) and will recon this is not caused by him/her. Therefor I think it would be better to send this rejection to the developer that made the latest change instead of the one that made the first change.

So this scenario what you are trying to prevent, is currently already begin caused very often with the way it is currently working in the Software Factory.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. Now we have some arguments for both cases, let's see how many votes it gets!