Slava Imeshev | 1 Feb 01:36 2007
Picon

Re: Continuous Integration Question

----- Original Message ----- 
> There are two ways to get what you describe, a tool and a practice.
> 
> On the practice side read up on "Rubber Chicken" continuous integration:
> 
> http://www.jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-on-a-Dollar-a-Day.html

I call that approach "Dead Chicken Token". In  the particular case the idea of 
asking for *that* to check in your changes would make most of the engineers 
I know plain sick (or at least guilty :)

Tokens are bad in general because 1) they serialize check ins which doesn't 
work in real-life products b) promote deepening distrust in the code base

> On the tool side various systems offer "unbreakable builds". The idea
> is described here:
> 
> http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/vmassol/archives/000937_unbreakable_builds.html
> 
> However... in my experience the situation you describe -- code usually
> broken -- isn't what happens in practice, but two things are required:
>
>   1. the developers need the ability to self-check before committing.
> If I can't easily run the same build locally then I can't take the
> steps to ensure I don't break anything.

Exactly.

>   2. the team culture must be that any broken builds are a
> stop-the-line showstopper issue that should be addressed immediately.
(Continue reading)

Jeffrey Fredrick | 1 Feb 05:32 2007
Picon

Re: Continuous Integration Question

On 1/31/07, Slava Imeshev <imeshev <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> Along these lines, here is a presentation on best practices for pain-free
> continuous integration:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/23c4o3
>

That's a nice presentation (putting aside the last slide).  :)

Have you seen these numbers from Cusumano?

"Trade-offs between Productivity and Quality in Selecting Software
Development Practices", IEEE Software, Sept-Oct 2003
Impact of daily builds: 93 percent gain in productivity
Impact of regression testing on code check-in: 36 percent reduction in
defect rate

To me the combination of these two just beg for CI.

Jtf

--

-- 
http://www.developertesting.com/
http://www.junitfactory.com

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

(Continue reading)

Slava Imeshev | 1 Feb 06:45 2007
Picon

Re: Continuous Integration Question

----- Original Message ----- 
> Have you seen these numbers from Cusumano?
> 
> "Trade-offs between Productivity and Quality in Selecting Software
> Development Practices", IEEE Software, Sept-Oct 2003
> Impact of daily builds: 93 percent gain in productivity
> Impact of regression testing on code check-in: 36 percent reduction in
> defect rate
> 
> To me the combination of these two just beg for CI.

Daily builds are so eighties... In fact, for many companies even daily 
builds is a leap forward.  Which makes me wonder why.  

To Ron Jeffrey:

You are dealing with  customers face-to-face often - do you have ideas why 
build management (not to mention continuous integration) falls behind? 

My personal theory is that it because academia hasn't picked it up yet.

Regards,

Slava Imeshev
www.viewtier.com

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

(Continue reading)


Gmane