On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Ian Docherty wrote:
* dev is one box per dev, with the best hardware affordable - nowadays that
means at least a dual core machine with 4GB of ram and decent disks.
I actually have my own development box as you suggest and it works fine but
our start-up company cannot afford hardware for every developer. We have a
managed server which replicates mostly the final live environment. (can you
replicate something that does not exist yet?)
In the case of a startup, I'd assume the devs would just run stuff on
their own existing machines. That assumes you're hiring the type of people
who have the types of machines at home that can run the type of app you're
writing.
* even better is the ability to make hot copies of the production
environment into VMs for the purposes of testing major upgrades (database
changes, new daemons, etc). The reason to use a VM is to make the process
repeatable.
Not thought of this before in this context but it makes sense.
This really became an issue when I worked at Socialtext, after a couple
flubbed upgrades. After that, we started using VMWare to create copies of
production to test the upgrades on, and things went _much_ smoother.
Shared dev machines made sense about 10 years ago, but any place still
using them is hopelessly backwards (err, like my current employer ;)
Backward or skinflints?
In the case of my current work, it's definitely backwards. YMMV.
-dave
/*===================================================
VegGuide.Org www.BookIRead.com
Your guide to all that's veg. My book blog
===================================================*/
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
