tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25066620.post5314403100358772015..comments2010-02-08T09:34:43.695-06:00S. Potterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17341145424164713662noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25066620.post-83602020536719260692010-02-08T09:34:43.695-06:002010-02-08T09:34:43.695-06:00@gsporar sorry I meant to respond to you and say that I really like the Junior High School sex analogy!:)S. Potterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17341145424164713662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25066620.post-15940225359389493702010-02-08T08:58:27.530-06:002010-02-08T08:58:27.530-06:00@Jesse, thanks for the Atlassian ad - I have always wanted one on my blog!<br /><br />Seriously though, I think advertising a tool that promotes an antiquated way of reviewing code in a non-agile way by saying pair programming isn&#39;t practical 100% of the time (to an agile crowd) to be a little silly.<br /><br />The blog post talks not just about pair programming. You should really be targeting non-agile teams with your product as it is tool focused, which as I mentioned in the blog post is anti-agile. So your advertisement is also badly placed.<br /><br />I do not mind you blatantly advertising your product, but when you make nonsensical and incomplete pitches this way, then you should expect this kind of response.<br /><br />If my post ONLY mentioned pair programming your advertisement pitch wouldn&#39;t be quite so annoying. However, you ignored 90% of my post and pretended you had actually read and considered the whole content in your response.<br /><br />Please do not post your advertisements to my blog again unless you are really responding to my blog post and can truly demonstrate relevance to the full content of my post.S. Potterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17341145424164713662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25066620.post-76541724312779326702010-02-08T05:06:51.424-06:002010-02-08T05:06:51.424-06:00Good post!<br /><br />A couple of comments/additional thoughts:<br /><br />Pair programming unquestionably helps devs produce better code. That said, almost every developer I&#39;ve spoken to finds it impossible or impractical to pair program 100% of the time for a number of reasons:<br /><br />* Pairing can be &#39;intense&#39;. Many folks I&#39;ve spoken to find that working with another person is best done for shorter periods of time, say 1-2 hours. Interestingly enough, this was found to be the optimal amount of time for doing code review too (in the Smart Bear book. Good read!), so perhaps it has to do with how long a typical person is able to intensely focus on a given task.<br /><br />* With increased team distribution, sometimes members of the team are not co-located, which makes pairing impossible.<br /><br />Developers at Atlassian practice both pair programming, and what I like to refer to as &#39;continuous code review&#39;. Just as continuous integration involves running fast builds for every commit, continuous code review involves frequently reviewing important changesets.<br /><br />Atlassian&#39;s Crucible <a href="http://www.atlassian.com/software/crucible" rel="nofollow">code review tool</a> and other products like Code Collaborator and ReviewBoard are good for supporting a continuous code review practice. These tools have the advantage of integrating with your SCM system such that it&#39;s easy to perform reviews based on changesets, either before or after they are committed to the repository.Jesse Gibbs - Atlassianhttp://www.atlassian.com/software/cruciblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25066620.post-88468314703748110242010-02-07T18:09:23.627-06:002010-02-07T18:09:23.627-06:00Nice post - I have some additional thoughts about code review aligning with agile at: http://blog.smartbear.com/the_smartbear_blog/2010/01/is-pair-programming-like-junior-high-sex.htmlgsporarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03461531799936638827noreply@blogger.com