I've found it is usually possible with some creative coding to keep db changes backward compatible and this is usually a much safer way of working anyway - irrespective of how you work
e.g keep the old field, introduce new field, code feature toggles against using both and then once you're happy with the new one you can safely delete.
Sometimes though, maybe something doesn't fit into small iterative changes. I would contest this is rare but if it does... well take the hit. Acknowledge it isn't great in this case. One pair works on the awful thing that is perhaps on a branch for a week. They have to contest with merging things etc. You get through it and move on.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I've found it is usually possible with some creative coding to keep db changes backward compatible and this is usually a much safer way of working anyway - irrespective of how you work
e.g keep the old field, introduce new field, code feature toggles against using both and then once you're happy with the new one you can safely delete.
Sometimes though, maybe something doesn't fit into small iterative changes. I would contest this is rare but if it does... well take the hit. Acknowledge it isn't great in this case. One pair works on the awful thing that is perhaps on a branch for a week. They have to contest with merging things etc. You get through it and move on.