On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:33:24 -0500, Michael Feathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is... it cycles back on itself. In your system, developers > don't have to care about committing frequently, they have to care about > committing frequently and correctly. And, it appears that in the > situation you outlined, they don't care about committing correctly yet.
In most cases, I'd prefer that teams err on the side of frequent commits, even if an error may slip in. In my book I tell a story of a place where they were so concerned about the correct part that commits became infrequent and painful because of integration issues. I don't think that Michael and I disagree really. but I would like to suggest that "frequent" is important, and sufficient, as long as you have a thorough post-check-in testing system, -Steve -- Steve Berczuk | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.berczuk.com SCM Patterns: Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration www.scmpatterns.com 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/
