Related
Is it a good policy to automate source control commits following successful builds?
Edit: I'm asking because I want more frequent, incremental commits between versions that make it easier to find the point where a bug was introduced than rolling back 2K+ new lines of code between v1.0 and v1.1.
No. A successful build does not imply a successful code change. Do you never test your code? IF you had some sort of automated unit testing, I could understand the question (although I would still recommend against it - I would not consider a code change tested until you verified its functionality yourself). But an automated commit after a successful build - not if you like your team mates, or if they have access to weapons.
No. Where would the meaningful commit messages come from? And the references to issue tracker items? How is the automated process supposed to know that a particular bit of work is complete?
With such a process in place, your repository would degrade to a glorified IDE undo buffer.
My team and support a large number of legacy applications all of which are currently functional but problematic to support and maintain. They all depend on code that the compiler manufacture has officially no support for.
So the question is should we leave the code as is, and risk a new compiler breaking our code, or should we bite the bullet and update all the code?
The answer is totally dependant on the resources your employer (or yourself) can afford to make the refactoring (or even totally rewrite big parts).
So you should first estimate how much time/developers you can afford to refactoring the application, then see if you think it'll be enough.
If you can afford time and people, then do it, don't hesitate! You're investing in the future by reducing the time to debug the application so it will be helpful and less expensive once the refactoring is done.
It depends on the nature of the applications, just how big and important they are, as well as the programming culture at your workplace, and the resources available to you.
If the applications are valuable enough to you that they are worth the trouble, and you have the necessary resources, then do the update. Don't let the problem persist.
If they are not valuable enough to be worth a full-scale update effort, or appropriate resources are not at hand, perhaps work on updating one at a time if possible.
Just some suggestions, but again this greatly depends on you and your organization.
It sounds like you have a large technical debt. This debt is only going to increase unless you do something. Both things you mentioned are options, and risky, but long term it's a risk you need to take.
Using an updated compiler just means you need to update the code to work in the new compiler. Something is bound to break, but then refactor the parts that break. This allows you to migrate.
The other option is to update your entire code base. This takes time, during which you need to maintain 2 copies of the code, or freeze the old version. Freezing the old version is probably not an option.
I would recommend using an updated compiler and fixing what breaks. This allows you to add features, while refactoring and fixing the current codebase.
Rewriting the code can be an useful step for you company for many reasons:
you can use a new compiler and a more recent platform
you can refactor the code deleting its weaknesses
you can motivate your people because developing new code is better than correct bugs in an old one.
Why don't you start that activity with a small number of people, beginning from the most common parts of the code? You can group them into a dll and use it also for future projects.
Recently I've been revisiting an old project, which I last worked on about two years ago. Obviously, during this time I've learned new habits about how best to program, and I've got the itch to keep the tests, scrap the implementation, and re-implement the entire project. It's not a large project, and I believe I'll not be losing much by re-writing it.
However, I don't know what to do about the version history. It's likely that when I'm done updating it, the new version will share only 3-4% of its code with the old version. Furthermore, the changes tend to be so wide-reaching that trying to maintain clean changesets is an exercise in frustration and futility. Given this, it seems unnecessary to force potential developers to download the old irrelevant versions.
One option I've been considering is to move the trunk to a branch, something like old-trunk/, and begin development in an empty branch. I don't know if this is a good idea, and I'm concerned that having two trunks could lead to confusion. Which brings me to the question:
What does SO think? If you encountered a project that had "reset" its trunk, would you be confused by it?
Why not just label/tag the trunk with "OldVersion" and continue development in the same location? This way you avoid the double branch altogether and still maintain ways to get to the old version of your code. Unless you're developing a different product, you likely want to keep the same trunk.
I tag the $trunk, so there is a "copy". Tag it the last version released, or the date before you started back on it, etc. I actually tag on the date released, and name my tags the actual date itself. (use Label inplace of tag if that is what your system supports).
After it is tagged, delete/rename/overhaul as needed. The version history is there, just in case. And, you have a complete copy labelled/tagged for archiving purposes.
Assuming you're using SVN, there's really nothing extra to do. Just remember the revision from which you started refactoring and then continue in working on the trunk. It's better than moving to an empty branch since the history of the changes from the old code to a new one will be recorded.
However, if you plan to write the thing from scratch and just copy some little bits of old code, maybe you should think about starting it in a new repository.
I don't see the need to throw the old version away. Just make all changes and check in. New developers will not have to download any old code, they will always just check out the new version.
No, it wouldn't confuse me because the project documentation would show that before I even got into it. We ALL have crap that needs to be redone, and frankly, should be.
Tell everyone it's insecure and not HIPAA compliant and they'll let you re-code it ;o)
And then start posting the fodder onto The Daily WTF for the rest of us 80))
Setup
Have you ever had the experience of going into a piece of code to make a seemingly simple change and then realizing that you've just stepped into a wasteland that deserves some serious attention? This usually gets followed up with an official FREAK OUT moment, where the overwhelming feeling of rewriting everything in sight starts to creep up.
It's important to note that this bad code does not necessarily come from others as it may indeed be something we've written or contributed to in the past.
Problem
It's obvious that there is some serious code rot, horrible architecture, etc. that needs to be dealt with. The real problem, as it relates to this question, is that it's not the right time to rewrite the code. There could be many reasons for this:
Currently in the middle of a release cycle, therefore any changes should be minimal.
It's 2:00 AM in the morning, and the brain is starting to shut down.
It could have seemingly adverse affects on the schedule.
The rabbit hole could go much deeper than our eyes are able to see at this time.
etc...
Question
So how should we balance the duty of continuously improving the code, while also being a responsible developer? How do we refrain from contributing to the broken window theory, while also being aware of actions and the potential recklessness they may cause?
Update
Great answers! For the most part, there seems to be two schools of thought:
Don't resist the urge as it's a good one to have.
Don't give in to the temptation as it will burn you to the ground.
It would be interesting to know if more people feel any balance exists.
I'm a big fan of making lists!
As soon as the urge takes you to re-write something - spend 10 minutes making a list of the things that need re-writing. Follow all of the alleys that take you further into the code that needs attention and list those, too.
Hopefully within a relatively short space of time you'll have one of two things:
A really long list that completely puts you off wanting to rewrite anything ever again.
A list which actually isn't that long, so why not indulge yourself and go for a re-write?!
I've found that spending two months fixing bugs caused by my "harmless" re-write was enough to cure me of the urge to do these sorts of things without a clear mandate/project plan to do so.
The most memorable project of this kind for me occured some 4 years ago when I was called in to a remote office to "help" with a project that was due in 1 week for major presentation to the client and was not working yet at all. The project had been primarily off-shored to India, and IMO, a project management failure resulted in a ton of spaghetti code that was too fragmented to ever work properly in its current form.
After a full day's review, I presented my opinion to the management that the project simply needed wholesale refactoring and reorganization or it would never work properly. The result of this discussion was 6 days of 20 hours work / 4 hours sleep, 2 of which I actually spent sleeping on the couch in the company lobby due to the wasted time when driving back to the hotel.
The major improvements to the code included:
Application of naming standards
Moved into source control
Development of a build process
Documentation of the individual components
Most of the original code was left in place, but simply moved and reorganized / refactored to make it sustainable in the long term. Was it hell week? Sure. Did it make the project more successful? Yep.
I can't live with spaghetti code, and I'll often donate my own personal time to address it.
How to restrain one’s self from the overwhelming urge to rewrite everything?
Become old*
As this has happened to me, I've gradually lost the urge to rewrite everything. Why?
Once you've done it a few times, you realise that you often end up worse off than you started.
Even if you're god's gift to programming and your brilliant rewrite introduces no new bugs, you'll simply fail to notice or implement about 30% of the small edge-case features/bugs which things rely on. This will cost you months in fixing
Nothing wears down your irrational exuberance like time. Often this is a sad loss, but in this case, it's a win.
*(more experience may also be a suitable substitute if you lack the free time to become old)
The impulse to rewrite is righteous, provided that:
you "freeze" the existing code (with a label)
you start the rewrite attempt in a separate branch
you prepare first some unit-test in order to ascertain the current behavior and make sure you reproduce the existing features...
That said, you have to balance the rewriting process with the measure stability of the legacy code.
"If it is not broken, do not fix it" ;)
It's not quite an answer, but reading the beautiful article The Narcissism of Small Code Differences might help.
You're absolutely right that there's a right time and a wrong time to rewrite (and destabilize) the code.
Reminds me of an engineer I knew who had a habit of diving in and doing major rewriting whenever he felt like it. This drove the QA staff for his product up the wall -- if he report a bug about something trivial, the bug would get fixed, but the engineer's major rewrite of stuff he noticed while fixing the one bug would introduce fifty other new bugs, which then the QA staff needed to track down.
So one way to cure yourself of the temptation to do rewrites is to walk a mile in the shoes of the QA engineer who has to test, diagnose, and report all those new bugs. Maybe even lend yourself to the QA department for a few months to get a personal feel for the type of work they do (if you've never done that).
Another suggestion would be to make a rule for yourself to write up notes to describe any change. Perhaps post these notes when you check in code changes to source code control. You may be motivated to make the changes as minor as possible this way.
Just don't - The rabbit hole always goes too deep. Make any small local changes that leave the place cleaner than you found it, but leave big refactoring for when you're alert and have plenty of time to burn.
A nice starter on tackling big refactorings in small stages at sourcemaking.com :
you have to make like Hansel and
Gretel and nibble around the edges, a
little today, a little more tomorrow
reread "Refactoring".
Take a piece of paper and itemize the "Bad Smells" list.
(for each smell in BadSmells() {
print smell.name;
}
Add comments to the code including item(s) from the list.
while( odorPersists() ) {
Work through the list, laser-focused on one smell at a time.
}
Personally, this is where bug tracking software such as JIRA or Bugzilla come in to place with me.
I have a hard time NOT fixing all the broken windows when I see them, but if the situation is bad enough (and time permits) I will open a ticket and either assign it to me or assign it to the group responsible, that way I don't go off on a tangent.
-- I do only what needs to be done right them, but yet the issue is documented and will be fixed in time.
-- This is not to say that small broken windows should be handled this way; small issues should always be fixed on contact IMHO.
As far as I am concerned, if you have nothing better to do than to rewrite the code then you should make everyone else aware and just do it. Obviously, if it's going to take days to get any sort of result and the changes would mean excessive downtime then it's not a good idea, but eventually that code will become a problem. Make others aware that the code is awful and try to get some sort of movement to rewrite it.
The problem with the above statement is that as a programmer/developer you will ALWAYS have other things to keep yourself busy. Just leave it on the low-priority list of things-to-do, so when you're struggling with some work you can always keep your rhythm going with the rewrite.
Joel has an article about this:
There's a subtle reason that programmers always want to throw away the code and start over. The reason is that they think the old code is a mess. And here is the interesting observation: they are probably wrong.
I've never worked anywhere particularly agile, so what I do is:
1) Figure out whether there's a reasonable fix that doesn't involve major rewrite. If not, then clear some time (perhaps by explaining to others how difficult the fix is) and do the rewrite.
2) There is a reasonable fix without major rewrite. Apply the fix, run the tests, check it in, mark the bug as fixed.
3) Now, raise a new bug/issue (enhancement request), outlining the proposed rewrite and how it would improve the code (simpler? more maintainable? reduces coupling? affects performance or resource use?). Assign it to myself, CC anyone interested in that bit of code.
4) Give people a chance to comment, then prioritise that new bug within my existing tasks. This usually means don't do it now, because most of the time if I have one "proper" bug to fix, then I have at least two. Do it once the critical list is cleared, or next time I need to do something that isn't boring. Or maybe after a couple of days it won't seem worth doing any more, and it won't get done, and I've saved the time I would have spent doing it.
The important thing, I think, is to avoid shaving a yak every time you make a small bugfix.
The trade-off is that if the code you want to rewrite is really bad, then it's easy to under-prioritise the rewrite, and you end up spending so much time maintaining it that you don't have time to replace it with something that would require less maintenance. That needs to be borne in mind. But no matter what priority the rewrite should be, or how your organisation assigns those priorities, fixing bad design in the same area of code is not the same thing as correcting the out-by-one error that caused the crash you originally went in to deal with. This has to be considered at step 1: if the design means there are probably a whole bunch of other out-by-one errors lurking in the code, then just fixing this one is probably not "reasonable". If it really was a typo, but you happened to spot a refactor opportunity because you had the file open, then correcting it and touching nothing else is "reasonable".
Obviously the more agile your shop, the more significant a refactor you can do without it being so disruptive / time-consuming / political as to require a separate task.
If it's some code you've inherited, start making the code your own. Write unit-tests, then refactor.
Write more unit tests just to find out that the code is running perfectly fine.
If you still have the urge to rewrite it, you will have some tests to find out that your rewriten code is now failing ;)
Bad code is not something that can be avoided totally, but it can be isolated by proper abstraction. If it is indeed wasteland, which means, there is no landfills around, focusing design process is much more effective than trying to make people write perfect code.
IDon't think you SHOULD stop yourself from this. Mostly if you FEEL for the big rewrite it's mostly correct to do. I insanely disagree with Joel Spolsky on this thing...
Though it's one of few places where I disagree with him ... ;)
Stop rewriting when it is good enough. For this you need to know what good program is for you not only for your employer. After all you do programming for life not for good impression. Develop sound criteria which really would tell you that you are good and result is descent and it is time to go to next task. You should like your programs not less then your boss likes them.
Refactor only if your boss/company actually encourages it, otherwise you'll end up doing frequent extra time to bring up code to perfection... Until someone less dedicated touches it again.
Starting assumption: you already "commit early, commit often".
Then there's never a bad time to start a refactoring, because you can easily back out at any point. I find that at the beginning, it always feels like it's going to be easy, but after making a few changes and seeing the effects, I start to realise quite how big a job it's going to be. That is the time to ask whether there is really time to make the changes, or whether living with it until next time you come to this code is the better course.
The willingness to stop, throw away a half-refactored branch, and do it the nasty but quick way where appropriate, is key.
That's for refactoring, where the changes are incremental, and running (or nearly-running) software keeps you well grounded. Rewriting is different, because the time until you figure out it's going to take longer than you thought is so much greater. I may be taking the question too literally, but there's almost never a good time to throw it away and start again.
Say there are two possible solutions to a problem: the first is quick but hacky; the second is preferable but would take longer to implement. You need to solve the problem fast, so you decide to get the hack in place as quickly as you can, planning to start work on the better solution afterwards. The trouble is, as soon as the problem is alleviated, it plummets down the to-do list. You're still planning to put in the better solution at some point, but it's hard to justify implementing it right now. Suddenly you find you've spent five years using the less-than-perfect solution, cursing it the while.
Does this sound familiar? I know it's happened more than once where I work. One colleague describes deliberately making a bad GUI so that it wouldn't be accidentally adopted long-term. Do you have a better strategy?
Write a test case which the hack fails.
If you can't write a test which the hack fails, then either there's nothing wrong with the hack after all, or else your test framework is inadequate. If the former, run away quick before you waste your life on needless optimisation. If the latter, seek another approach (either to flagging hacks, or to testing...)
Strategy 1 (almost never selected): Don't implement the kluge. Don't even let people know it's a possibility. Just do it the right way the first time. Like I said, this one is almost never selected, due to time constraints.
Strategy 2 (dishonest): Lie and Cheat. Tell management that there are bugs in the hack, and they could cause major problems later on. Unfortunately, most of the time, the managers just say to wait until the bugs become a problem, then fix the bugs.
Strategy 2a: Same as strategy 2, except there really are bugs. Same problem, though.
Strategy 3 (and my personal favorite): Design the solution whenever you can, and do it well enough that an intern or code-monkey could do it. It's easier to justify spending the small amount of code-monkey money than to justify your own salary, so it might just get done.
Strategy 4: Wait for a rewrite. Keep waiting. Sooner or later (probably later), someone is going to have to rewrite the thing. Might as well do it right then.
Here is a great related article on technical debt.
Basically, it is an analogy of debt with all the technical decisions you make. There is good debt and bad debt... and you have to pick the debt that is going to achieve the goals you want with the least long term cost.
The worst kind of debt is small little accumulating shortcuts that are analogous to credit card debt... each one doesn't hurt, but pretty soon you are in the poor house.
This is a major issue when doing deadline driven work. I find that adding very detailed comments about why this way was chosen and some hints at how it should be coded help. This way people looking at the code see it and keep it fresh.
Another option that will work is add a bug.feature in your tracking framework (you do have one, right?) detailing the rework. That way it is visible and may force the issue at some point.
The only time you can ever justify fixing these things (because they're not really broken, just ugly) is when you have another feature or bug fix that touches the same section of code, and you might as well re-write it.
You have to do the math on what a developer's time costs. If software requirements are being met, and the only thing wrong is that the code is embarrasing under the hood, it's not really worth fixing.
Whole companies can go out of business because over-zealous engineers insist on a re-architecture every year or so when they get antsy.
If it's bug-free and meets requirements, it's done. Ship it. Move on.
[Edit]
Of course I'm not advocating that everything be hacked in all the time. You have to design and write code carefully in the normal course of the development process. But when you do end up with hacks that just had to be done quickly, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether or not it's worth it to clean up the code. If over the lifetime of the application you will spend more time coding around a messy hack than you would have fixing it, then of course fix it. But if not, it's way too expensive and risky to re-code a working, bug-free application just because looking at the source makes you ill.
YOU DON'T DO INTERIM SOLUTIONS.
Sometimes I think programmers just need to be told this.
Sorry about that, but seriously--a hacky solution is worthless and even on the first iteration can take longer than doing a portion of the solution correctly.
Please stop leaving me your crap code to maintain. Just ALWAYS CODE IT RIGHT. No matter how long it takes and who yells at you.
When you are sitting there twiddling your thumbs after delivering early while everyone else is debugging their stupid hacks, you'll thank me.
Even if you don't think you are a great programmer, always strive to do the best you can, never take shortcuts--it doesn't cost you ANY time to do it right. I can justify this statement if you don't believe me.
Suddenly you find you've spent five years using the less-than-perfect solution, cursing it the while.
If you're cursing it, why is it at the bottom of the TODO list?
If it's not affecting you, why are you cursing it?
If it is affecting you, then it's a problem that needs to be fixed NOW.
I make sure that I'm vocal about the priority of the long term fix ESPECIALLY after the short term fix has gone in.I detail the reasons why it's a hack and not a good long term solution and use those to get the stakeholders (managers, clients, etc) to understand why it needs to be fixed Depending on the case, I may even inject a bit of worst case scenario fear in there. "If this safely line snaps, the whole bridge could collapse!"I take responsibility for coming up with a long term solution and make sure that it gets deployed
It is a hard call. I have done hacks personally cause, sometimes you HAVE to get that product out the door and into the customers hands. However, the way that I take care of it is to just do it.
Tell the project lead or your boss, or the customer: There are some spots that need to be cleaned up, and coded better. I need a week to do it, and it is going to cost less to do it now, then it will be to do it 6 months from now, when we need to implement an extension onto the subsystem.
Usually problems like this arise from bad communication with management or the customer. If the solution works for the customer then they see no reason to ask for it to be changed. So they need to be told about the tradeoffs you made beforehand so they can plan extra time to fix the problems after you've implemented the quick solution.
How to solve it depends a bit on why it's a bad solution. If your solution is bad because it's hard to change or maintain then the first time you have to do maintenance and have a bit more time then that is the right time to upgrade to a better solution. In this case it helps if you tell the customer or your boss that you took a shortcut in the first place. That way they know that they can't expect a fast solution next time around. Cripling the UI can be a good way to make sure the customer comes back to get stuff fixed.
If the solution is bad because it's risky or unstable then you really need to talk to the person doing the planning and have some time planned in to fix the problem asap.
Good luck. In my experience this is almost impossible to achieve.
Once you go down the slippery slope of implementing a hack because you are under pressure then you might as well get used to living with it for all time. There is almost NEVER enough time to re-work something that already works, no matter how badly it is implemented internally. What makes you think you will magically have more time "at some later date" to fix the hack?
The only exception I can think of to this rule is if the hack completely prevents you from implementing another piece of functionality that is needed by a customer. Then you have no choice but to do the re-work.
I try to build the hacky solution so that it can be migrated to the longterm way as painlessly as possible. Say you got a guy who is building a database in SQL Server cuz that's his strongest DB, but your corporate standard is Oracle. Build the db with as few non-transferable features (like Bit datatypes) as possible. In this example, it's not hard to avoid bit types, but it makes transitioning later an easier process.
Educate whoever is in charge of making the final decision why the hacky way of doing things is bad in the long-run.
Describe the problem in terms they can relate to.
Include a graph of cost, productivity, and revenue curves.
Teach them about technical debt.
Regularly refactor if you're pushed forward.
Never call it "refactoring" or "going back and cleaning up" in front of non-technical people. Instead, call it "adapting" the system to handle "new features".
Basically, people who don't understand software don't get the concept of revisiting things that already work. The way they look at it, developers are like mechanics who want to keep taking apart and reassembling the entire car every time someone wants to add a feature, which sounds insane to them.
It helps to make analogies to everyday things. Explain to them how when you made the interim solution, you made choices that suited building it quickly, as opposed to being stable, maintainable, etc. It's like choosing to build with wood instead of steel because wood is easier to cut, and thus, you could build the interim solution quicker. The wood, however, simply can not support the foundation of a 20-story building.
We use Java and Hudson for continuous integration. 'Interim solutions' must be commented with:
// TODO: Better solution required.
Every time Hudson runs a build it provides a report of each TODO item so that we have an up to date, highly visible record of any outstanding items that need improved.
Great question. This bothers me a lot, too - and most of the time I'm the sole person responsible for prioritizing issues in my own projects (yep, small business).
I found out that the problem that needs to be fixed is usually just a subset of the problem. IOW, the customer that needs an urgent fix does not need the whole problem to be solved, just a part of it - smaller or larger. That sometimes enables me to create a workaround that is not solution to the complete problem but just to the customer's subset and that allows me to leave the bigger issue open in the issue tracker.
That may of course not apply at all to your work environment :(
This reminds me of the story of "CTool". In the beginning CTool was put forward by one of our devs, I'll call him Don, as one possible way to solve the problem we were having. Being an earnest hard-working type, Don plugged away and delivered a working prototype. You know where I am going with this. Overnight, CTool became a part of the company work flow with an entire department depending on it. By the second or third day, bitter complaints started streaming in about CTool's shortcomings. Users questioned Don's competence, commitment and IQ. Don's protests that this was never supposed to be a production app fell on deaf ears. This went on for years. Finally, someone got around to re-writing the app, well after Don had departed. By this time, so much loathing had become attached to the name CTool that naming it CTool version 2 was out of the question. There was even a formal funeral for CTool, somewhat reminiscent of the copier (or was it a printer?) execution scene in Office Space.
Some might say Don deserved the slings and arrows for not making it go right to fix CTool. My only point is that saying you should never hack out a solution is probably unjustifiable in the Real World. But if you are the one to do it, tread cautiously.
Get it in writing (an email). So when it becomes a problem later management doesn't "forget" that it was supposed to be temporary.
Make it visible to the users. The more visible it is the less likely people are going to forget to go back and do it the right way when the crisis is over.
Negotiate before the temp solution is in place for a project, resources, and time lines to get the real fix in. Work for the real solution should probably begin as soon as the temp solution is finished.
You file a second very descriptive bug against your own "fix" and put a to-do comment right in the affected areas that says, "This area needs a lot of work. See defect #555" (use the right number of course). People who say "don't put in a hack" don't seem to understand the question. Assume you have a system that needs to be up and running now, your non-hack solution is 8 days of work, your hack is 38 minutes of work, the hack is there to buy you time to do the work and not lose money while you're doing it.
Now you still have to get your customer or management agree to schedule the N*100 minutes of time required to do the real fix in addition to the N minutes needed now to fix it. If you must refuse to implement the hack until you get such agreement, then maybe that's what you have to do, but I've worked with some understanding people in that regard.
The real price of introducing a quick-fix is that when someone else needs to introduce a 2nd quick fix, they will introduce it based on your own quick-fix. So, the longer a quick-fix is in place, the more entrenched it will become. Quite often, a hack takes only a little bit longer than doing things right, until you encounter a 2nd hack which builds on the first.
So, obviously it is (or seems to be) sometimes necessary to introduce a quick fix.
One possible solution, assuming your version control supports it, is to introduce a fork from the source whenever you make such a hack. If people are encouraged to avoid coding new features within these special "get it done" forks, then it will eventually be more work to integrate the new features with the fork than it will be to get rid of the hack. More likely, though, the "good" fork will get discarded. And if you are far enough away from release that making such a fork will not be practical (because it is not worth doing the dual integration mentioned above), then you probably shouldn't even be using a hack anyways.
A very idealistic approach.
A more realistic solution is to keep your program segmented into as many orthogonal components as possible and to occasionally do a complete rewrite of some of the components.
A better question is why the hacky solution is bad. If it is bad because it reduces flexibility, ignore it until you need flexibility. If it is bad because it impacts the programs behavior, ignore it and eventually it will become a bug fix and WILL be addressed. If it is bad because it looks ugly, ignore it, as long as the hack is localized.
Some solutions I've seen in the past:
Mark it with a comment HACK in the code (or similar scheme such as XXX)
Have an automatic report run and emailed weekly to those that care which counts how many times the HACK comments appear
Add a new entry in your bug tracking system with the line number and description of the right solution (so the knowledge gained from the research before writing the hack isn't lost)
write a test case that demonstrates how the hack fails (if possible) and check it into the appropriate test suite (i.e. so that it throws errors that someone will eventually want to cleanup)
once the hack is installed and the pressure is off, immediately start on the right solution
This is an excellent question. One thing I've noticed as I get more experience: hacks buy you a very short amount of time, and often cost you a huge amount more. Closely related is the 'quick fix' that solves what you think is the problem -- only to find when it blows up that that it wasn't the problem at all.
Setting aside the debate about whether you should do it, let's assume that you have to do it. The trick now is to do it in a way that minimizes long range affects, it easily ripped out later, and makes itself a nuisance so you remember to fix it.
The nuisance part is easy: make it issue a warning every time you execute the kludge.
The ripped out part can be easy: I like to do this be putting the kludge behind a subroutine name. That makes it easier to update since you compartmentalize the code. When you get your permanent solution, you're subroutine can either implement it or be a no-op. Sometimes a subclass can work nicely for this too. Don't let other people depend on whatever your quick fix is, though. It's difficult to recommend any particular technique without seeing the situation.
Minimizing long range effects should be easy if the rest of the code is nice. Always go through the published interface, and so on.
Try to make the cost of the hack clear to the business folks. Then they can make an informed decision either way.
You could intentionally write it in way that is overly restrictive and singe purposed and would require a re-write to be modified.
We had to do this once - make a short term demo version that we knew we did not want to keep. The customer wanted it on a winTel box, so we developed the prototype in SGI/XWindows. (We were fluent in both, so it wasn't a problem).
Confession:
I have used '#define private public' in C++ in order to read data from some other code layer. It went in as a hack but works well and fixing it has never become a priority. It is now 3 years later...
One of the main reasons hacks do not get removed is the risk that one introduces new bugs while fixing the hack. (Especially when dealing with pre-TDD code bases.)
My answer is a bit different from the others. My experience is that the following practices help you stay agile and move from hackey first iteration/alpha solutions to beta/production ready:
Test Driven Development
Small units of refactoring
Continous Integration
Good Configuration management
Agile database techniques/database refactoring
And it should go without saying you have to have stakeholder support to do any of these correctly. But with these products in place you have the right tools and processes to quickly change a product in major ways with confidence. Sometimes your ability to change is your ability to manage the risk of the changes and from the development perspective these tools/techniques give you surer footing.