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

Re: [XP] Hubflow? More like Hubflown't

Expand Messages
  • Ryan King
    ... Thanks for the link! Something like Feature Toggles came up as well, and I think they re a good way to wiggle out of the cases where it s hard to break a
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 21, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      George Dinwiddie <lists@...> wrote:
      > I did happen across "Feature Branches vs Feature Toggles"
      > (http://geekswithblogs.net/Optikal/archive/2013/02/10/152069.aspx) 

      > recently and you might find some more tidbits in it.


      Thanks for the link!

      Something like Feature Toggles came up as well, and I think they're a good way to wiggle out of the cases where it's hard to break a task into tiny, reliable, unobjectionable changes.

      I guess a (the?) big appeal of Feature Branches is that they prove that the *disablement* of the feature works atomically: you can choose to release without that branch and know none of that branch's parts are depended-upon by any other feature. But it's exactly these interdependencies that are getting lost when branches run long: in a healthy codebase, the core classes should churn relatively often (because developers are heeding code smells, and also not pre-generalizing things before it's time).

      Thanks,
      —☈
    • thierry henrio
      Hello George On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, George Dinwiddie ... Good pointer indeed, and a question Why is there a candidate branch ? Why not master ?
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello George

        On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, George Dinwiddie
        <lists@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Ryan,
        >
        > I don't have much to add to your excellent list, below. I did happen
        > across "Feature Branches vs Feature Toggles"
        > (http://geekswithblogs.net/Optikal/archive/2013/02/10/152069.aspx)
        > recently and you might find some more tidbits in it.
        >
        Good pointer indeed, and a question

        Why is there a "candidate branch" ?

        Why not master ?
        Because it's easier to undo or because of different policies ( candidate
        can fail ) ?

        A very simple workflow is indeed "short lived" : pick something small,
        branch from master, commit as often, merge to master with some squash if
        required, push

        What does matter finally is how we are comfortable with our history ?,
        Thierry


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • George Dinwiddie
        Thierry, ... It s not my article, so I can t answer for the author. I suspect that s to freeze the code for release while others continue to develop
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 1 8:22 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thierry,

          On 2/28/13 7:18 PM, thierry henrio wrote:
          > Hello George
          >
          > On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:00 PM, George Dinwiddie
          > <lists@...>wrote:
          >
          >> **
          >>
          >>
          >> Ryan,
          >>
          >> I don't have much to add to your excellent list, below. I did happen
          >> across "Feature Branches vs Feature Toggles"
          >> (http://geekswithblogs.net/Optikal/archive/2013/02/10/152069.aspx)
          >> recently and you might find some more tidbits in it.
          >>
          > Good pointer indeed, and a question
          >
          > Why is there a "candidate branch" ?

          It's not my article, so I can't answer for the author. I suspect that's
          to "freeze the code" for release while others continue to develop
          unimpeded. With git that's an easy thing to do.

          A decade ago I would tag the head in SVN for a release candidate. If a
          problem showed up with that build (very rare) then I would fix it and
          repeat with the current head. I didn't use branches.

          >
          > Why not master ?
          > Because it's easier to undo or because of different policies ( candidate
          > can fail ) ?
          >
          > A very simple workflow is indeed "short lived" : pick something small,
          > branch from master, commit as often, merge to master with some squash if
          > required, push
          >
          > What does matter finally is how we are comfortable with our history ?,
          > Thierry

          - George

          --
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          * George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
          Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
          Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.