Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

101505Re: [XP] Asynchronous versus synchronous continuous integration

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    Jan 2, 2005
      On Sunday, January 2, 2005, at 8:41:11 AM, Robert Watkins wrote:

      > Ron Jeffries wrote:
      >> If more than one pair release has taken place, we really don't know
      >> what caused the problem when the thousand year tests fail. That's
      >> not good. If our thoughts have moved on, that's not good.
      >>
      >> Therefore -- in my opinion -- the vector should point in the
      >> direction of getting all the necessary info instantly, not in the
      >> direction of tolerating and accommodating slow feedback.

      > Shouldn't it point towards effectiveness? Important but non urgent feedback
      > can certainly be delayed. It is this sort of feedback that the asynchronous
      > builds are designed to give (as well as being a safety net for the normal
      > developer builds).

      "Be effective." What kind of advice is that?

      Practice vectors can't point towards effectiveness: there's no
      measure of that. Practice vectors say "test more", or "integrate
      more often", or "sit together".

      The practice vectors are there to remind us that what we're used to
      ... what we "posit" ... isn't necessarily the way things ought to
      be.

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.
      (I am large, I contain multitudes.) --Walt Whitman
    • Show all 117 messages in this topic