| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
/me puts on software engineering hat and steps upon soapbox Its not a technology problem. it's a people problem.If everyone with commit access doesn't recognize the importance of keeping trunk buildable and all tests green, then no amount of gatekeeper or other will keep things working well.
Public embracement seems to work somewhat well. "JAY BROKE THE BUILD" shouted out in IRC, EMAIL, or across the room keeps me humble and reminds me to take care when pushing to trunk.
All that said, some kind of early warning system would be good. Running tests automatically before or immediately after check in seems to be the standard. If there is breakage, catch it early, assign blame and let the culprit respond to the breakage.
-- Jay -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jordan Mantha" <laserjock@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 1:25 AM To: <apt-zeroconf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Apt-zeroconf] Improving check-in quality
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Jorge O. Castro<jorge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Neil Shepperd<nshepperd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Sounds good. Something that might also be a good plan is to officially implement rule #1 of TDD: trunk should always pass tests. At least then the insanity will be slightly reduced. (also, I wonder if launchpad could get one of those automatic gatekeeper programs which refuse to push if one of the tests is broken by the change?)Perhaps we need a PQM? http://bazaar-vcs.org/PatchQueueManagerWhat about Tarmac ( https://edge.launchpad.net/tarmac ) which LP dev Paul Hummer has been working on. -Jordan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~apt-zeroconf Post to : apt-zeroconf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~apt-zeroconf More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
