I'm with you, Steven! Developers should be encouraged to check in
their work, but within certain constraints. If they use a personal
branch (the preferred method) then they may check in their code as
often as they wish and push to a common branch at times they choose.
On the other hand, that common branch MUST have good code, as that's
what everyone else uses. After a merge, the code must at the very
least compile, and ideally should pass some kind of sanity check
before being checked in. (A full regression would be nice, it's
usually impractical due to time considerations.)
In addition, I prefer that the builders have the ability to pull
the changes they desire from the development groups. This may be
by merge from the common branch (as above) into an integration branch,
or could be by some other method. The goal here is to have a zero-
failure policy on the scheduled builds, which I don't believe can be
achieved in practice if the developers make the final decision on
what goes into the scheduled builds.
"Steven W. Orr" <steveo@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sort of new as a CC admin, but this statement sort of piqued my
> interest. Let's pretend that I'm Joe Developer and I'm working in a
> personal branch. If I have hacked heavily on a module and I want to check
> it in simply as a means of checkpointing my work, is there anything wrong
> with that? Or is there some reason that I should discourage this? I do
> understand that the code should be functional when we merge back onto a
> previous branch, but I didn't think there was a problem in the personal
> branch.
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Sussmilch, John wrote:
>
> => I encountered the same problems with my developers. Part of it is
> =>related to poor coding practice - checking in files that don't compile is
> =>something Configuration management is supposed to discourage.
-- The CEO of my employer requires me to include the following notice in my signature:* This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately. --- Paul M. Sander +1 650 261 5174 | To the medieval era's literate few..., the BroadVision, Inc. | turn of the millenium held a particular alure. 585 Broadway | After all, with the stroke of a quill, the Redwood City, CA 94063 USA | world went from DCCCCLXXXXVIIIJ to...M. | -- Rachel Emma Silverman, Wall St. Journal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:23:25 EDT