Being in this game for the best part of twenty years, I must confess that its not often I find something that revolutionises my coding ways. I do tend to try a lot of things, but most of them end up revealing themselves as fads or are incompatible with my flow. For instance, I never managed to get BDD to work for me, try as I might. I will keep trying because it sounds really useful, but it hasn't clicked just yet.
Having said all of that, these moments of enlightenment do occasionally happen, and when they do, nothing beats that life-changing feeling. "Pull Request Driven Development" (or PRDD) is my latest find. I'll start by confessing that "PRDD" as a name was totally made up for this post and hopefully you can see its rather tongue in cheek. However, the benefits of this approach are very real. In fact, I've been using PRDD for a while now but I just never really noticed its presence creeping in. Today, as I introduced a new developer to the process, I finally had the eureka moment and saw just how brilliant it has been thus far. It also made me realise that some people are not aware of this great tool in the developer's arsenal.
But first things first. In order to explain what I mean by PRDD, I need to provide a bit of context. Everyone is migrating to git these days, even those of us locked behind corporate walls; in our particular case, the migration path implied exposure to Git Stash. For those not in the know, picture it as an expensive and somewhat less featureful version of GitHub, but with most of the core functionality there. Of course, I'm sure GitHub is not that cheap for enterprises either, but hey at least its the tool everyone uses. Anyway - grumbling or not - we moved to Stash and all development started to revolve around Pull Requests (PRs), raised for each new feature.
Not long after PRs were introduced, a particularly interesting habit started to appear: developers begun opening the PRs earlier and earlier during the feature cycle rather than waiting to the very end. Taking this approach to the limit, the idea is that when you start to work on a new feature, you raise the ticket and the PR before you write any code at all. In practice - due to Stash's anachronisms - you need to push at least one commit, but the general notion is valid. This was never mandated anywhere, and there was no particular coordination. I guess one possible explanation for this behaviour is that one wants to get rid of the paperwork as quickly as possible to get to the coding. At any rate, the causes may be obscure but the emerging behaviour was not.
When you combine early PRs with the commit early and commit often approach - which you should be using anyway - the PR starts to become a living document; people see your development work as it progresses and they start commenting on it and possibly even sending you patches as you go along. In a way, this is an enabler for a very efficient kind of peer programming - particularly if you have a tightly knit team - because it gives you maximum parallelism but in a very subtle, non-noticeable way. The main author of the PR is coding as she would normally be, but whenever there is a lull in development - those moments where you'd be browsing the web for five minutes or so - you can quickly check for any comments on your PR and react to those. Similarly, other developers can carry on doing their own work and browse the PRs on their downtime; this allows them to provide feedback whenever it is convenient to them, and to choose the format of the feedback - lengthy or quick, as time permits.
Quick feedback is many a times invaluable in large code bases because everyone tends to know their own little corner of the code and only very few old hands know how it all hangs together. Thus, seemingly trivial one liners such as "have you considered using API xyz instead of rolling your own" or "don't forget to do abc when you do that" could save you many hours of pain and enable knowledge to be transferred organically - something that no number of wiki pages could hope to achieve in a million years because its very difficult to find these pearls in a sea of uncurated content. And because you committed early and often, each commit is very small and very easy to parse in a small interval of time, so people are much more willing to review - as opposed to that several Kb (or even Mb!) patch that you will have to allocate a day or two for. Further: if you take your commit message seriously - as, again, you should - you will find that the number of reviewers will grow rapidly simply because developers are nosy and opinionated.
Note that this review process involves no vague meetings and no lengthy and unfocused email chains; it is very high-quality because it is (or can be) very focused to specific lines of code; it causes no unwanted disruptions because you review where and when you choose to review; reviewers can provide examples and even fix things themselves if they so choose; it is totally inclusive because anyone who wants to participate can, but no one is forced to; and it equalises local and remote developers because they all have access to the same data (modulus some IRL conversations that always take place) - an important feature in this world of near-shoring, off-shoring and home-working. Most importantly, instead of finding out some fundamental errors of approach at the end of an intense period of coding, you now have timely feedback. This saves an enormous amount of time - an advantage that anyone who has been through lengthy code reviews and then spent a week or two reacting to that feedback can appreciate.
I am now a believer in PRDD. So much so that whenever I go back to work on legacy projects in svn, I find myself cringing all the way to the end of the feature. It just feels so nineties.
Update: As I finished penning this post and started reflecting about it it suddenly dawned on me that a lot of things we now take for granted are only possible because of git. And I don't mean DVCS', I specifically mean git. For example PRDD is made possible to a large extent because committing in git is a reversible process and history can be fluid if required. This means that people are not afraid of committing, which in turn enables a lot of the goodness I described above. Many DVCS' didn't like this way of viewing history - and to be fair, I know of very few people that liked the idea until they started using it. Once you figure out what it is good for (and not so good for), it suddenly becomes an amazing tool. Git is full of little decisions like this that at first sight look either straight insane or just not particularly useful but then turn out to change entire development flows.