On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:38:27 -0500, Ron Jeffries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Friday, December 31, 2004, at 1:34:12 PM, Jason Yip wrote: > > - When a build breaks, it's an opportunity for us to learn how to > > improve our build, tests, and deployment process. > > Well, except that no one's there. I'm not understanding this...
> > - "Live" builds that have occasional failures are preferred over > > "dead" builds that never break. > > I don't understand this. I think that Jason means that it's better to err on the side of change and risk an occasional (recoverable) error rather than have perfect builds with little change. ie, balancing stability of the codeline with the desired amount of change. This is something that I agree with ;) -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/
