----- Original Message -----
From: "bernard_notarianni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: [XP] Seen on Massol's blog: Unbreakable builds
>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dominic Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> bernard_notarianni wrote:
>>
>> > I just read the new post on Vincent Massol's blog.
>>
>> His blog describes a (theoretical) setup in which
>> commits are automatically caught by the SCM's
>> pre-commit hook, sent to a build farm, and only
>> committed if the build succeeds.
>>
>> > Does anybody have seen an implementation of a similar
>> > solution?
>>
>> Yes, every XP project has the equivalent.
>>
>> > What were the products used?
>>
>> Developers.
>>
>> > What were the issues?
>>
>> None.
>
> Let me reformulate what Vincent explains in his post, to help you see
> the point:
>
> It happens sometime, on large scale project, that the build breaks,
> and developpers dont care about it. Experience shows that happen
> wether it is an XP project or not.
>
> Vincent propose a very interesting automatic solution (not based on
> human checking) to avoid this situation, and I would be interested of
> getting feedback of people who tried to solve this issue.
>
> Thanx again for you help.
What Dominic is saying is that the usual workflow
in an XP project (and I emphasize "usual") makes
this somewhat of a non-issue. The reason is that
the workflow follows pretty much the same path
laid out in the article you reference.
Part of the integration practice (continuous
integration) is to verify that all unit tests pass at
100% before finishing. That, in turn, requires that
the product can be built with the code to be
integrated.
Put another way, if you follow the XP continuous
integration practice as described, you won't have
this problem. Period.
Quite a few people use Cruise Control to do
continuous integration, with some form of automatic
indication if the build or tests fail. That can be
e-mail notification, but it's frequently like an Orb
or a lava lamp that turns different colors depending
on the build condition.
In counterpoint, both Kent Beck and Ron Jeffries
are on record as saying they prefer manual integration,
and cite a number of reasons having to do with workflow
and team dynamics for that preference.
On another point: if a project has a continuously
broken build over any substantial length of time,
or they have broken builds frequently, I'd question
whether they're "really doing XP". There's a fairly
big grey area between "XP" and "not XP", but that
is a characteristic that's on the wrong side of the
line, IMO.
HTH
John Roth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
