--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Berczuk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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...
Neither am I... *Everyone* is there to witness the build failure.
> > > - "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
> ;)
Given that I pretty much lifted the idea from your book, I'd hope
you'd agree... :)
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/
