News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Field Study on Technical Debt by keithpeter on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @03:48AM (#9966917)
Sounds like a small company making a niche product.

What were you able to do to improve the situation?

Which issue did you tackle first (documentation of processes backwards or source control forwards)?

Re:A Field Study on Technical Debt by ryandrake on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @10:03AM (#9968661)
I'd like to think I left the situation far better than I found it.

Tackled source control and issue tracking first since they were low hanging fruit. Next came basic (manual) backups. My background is not in putting together general office-wide IT solutions, so I did not feel qualified to recommend any specific package. After that, it was on to a sane build and deployment process that involved a dedicated build machine and included QA. After a long time I could start safely making code changes to clean the actual codebase up.

I think you'll see this a lot in manufacturing companies who sell physical hardware. The embedded software is a critical part of the product, yet it's not treated with much more care or seriousness than anything else on the BOM. Night and day difference between working at a company where software _is the product_ vs where software is just one of the many components that goes inside the product.

Re:A Field Study on Technical Debt by keithpeter on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @11:18AM (#9969174)
Thanks for reply. Software for manufactured systems is an area that can only grow so I hope more get involved in the way you did.