I'm curious about the stated preference by Ron on the list and Kent in
the 2nd edition for synchronous manual continuous integration. It
seems decidedly "old school" to me. I'll assume that Ron and Kent
know what they're doing so I'd like to understand what the rationale
is here.
So, the scenario is 10 programmers (i.e., 5 pairs), co-located, etc.
My default position is still asynchronous continuous integration.
What are the concerns?
One thing I noticed that the suggested time between commits is quite a
bit higher that I would do normally. The 2nd edition seems to suggest
a couple hours at most. I prefer an average of about 20 minutes,
definitely less than an hour.
I also have an assumption about staging the "safety nets", if you
will. Immediate group of unit tests for the current feature should
run in at most 2 seconds, pre-commit (aka Private Sandbox) build
should be < 5 minutes (ideally less than two), post-commit full build
falls into the Ten Minute Build (at most) practice. There may be more
staging depending on how complicated the deployment environment is.
Every time there is a failure, we learn to add something to the
previous faster-running stage.
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/
