Our results vary - but we use the success rate as an indicator as to which modules require further attention.
Because we have a relatively small team, and all developers are responsible for ensuring tests pass and coverage is acceptable before they check in blocks of work, build failure typically indicates unexpected implications of a change (e.g. developer did not have latest version of a dependency, broke an upstream interface, etc) OR they indicate unit tests which do not pass consistently. Clearly the former is at times normal, and the latter is at all times bad! Our worst module currently has a success rate around 20% (and is receiving some much needed TLC), and our best are at 95%+. Regards, Matt 2008/11/7 Ruben Willems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi > > > We do CI for the moment, and the successrate is dependent on the > programmers ;-) > ranging from 46% to 97% > > > with kind regards > Ruben Willems > > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:05 PM, JayFleming < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Hi folks, >> >> We're currently running full integration builds on a checkpoint >> schedule ever few hours during the working day...fetching over an >> existing tree and building incrementally. And I was just >> curious...what kind of success rates are you all seeing with your >> incrementals, and are you running a similar system (checkpoint/CI) or >> are the majority of you on a more fine grained incremental strategy? >> >> Cheers, >> Jason > > > -- Matt Chatterley Director Mattched IT Ltd http://www.mattchedit.com
