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

Re: [XP] Who here actually has an integration machine?

Expand Messages
  • Steve Berczuk
    ... Checking in code frequently is good. Working with the same code that everyone else is is also useful most of the time, but it is generally best to control
    Message 1 of 65 , Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Nicholas Robinson wrote:
      >>> > Another annoying downside is that Visual Studio .Net automatically
      >>> > checks out files when you edit them, which means it also gets latest
      >>> > of that file.
      > We are currently experiencing the same problems using integrated Visual Source Safe with .NET. I
      > recommended at the begining of the project to not bother with source safe integration, and do it
      > manually to give us extra control. I wasnt aware of the problems we are now experiencing, but I
      > felt the integration would be too "integrated" and probably produced to a development perspective
      > orthogonal to the way we really wanted to work....needless to say we are now feeling it using VSS
      > and .NET together. The easiest solution is to not use VSS in .NET, but getting tool-dependant
      > people to accept that is difficult.

      Checking in code frequently is good. Working with the same code that
      everyone else is is also useful most of the time, but it is generally
      best to control when you get new code in your Private Workspace.

      It IS important to be sure to build/test with the latest code before you
      check in though.

      -steve

      --
      Steve Berczuk | steve@... | http://www.berczuk.com
      SCM Patterns: Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
      www.scmpatterns.com
    • Bill de hÓra
      ... What was done in C3 sounds like a physical representation of a floating build tag. Here s how it could work in CVS. You: update your sandbox against the
      Message 65 of 65 , Apr 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Nigel Thorne wrote:
        > This sounds like the ideal setup.
        >
        > Anyone got any idea how to set up something similar in Source Safe or CVS..
        >
        > It sounds like people creating branches, then integrating them back to the main branch... but not quite.


        What was done in C3 sounds like a physical representation of a
        floating build tag. Here's how it could work in CVS. You:

        update your sandbox against the 'build' tag
        do some TDD
        update your sandbox against the 'build' tag
        unlabel the code to check in
        run those tests again
        check stuff into the HEAD tag
        label your new stuff as 'build' in CVS
        everyone else has it when they update against 'build'

        there are synchronization issues and it is a somewhat verbose
        protocol, but you'd doing half these steps in any case (a
        script/task that deals with labelling and relabelling is a
        very-nice-to-have). In practice it becomes a ritual and the
        synchronization issues are about as significant as merging instead
        of locking.

        A pure XP setup might argue that with full test coverage you don't
        need a build tag and can work away against HEAD. In practice, you'll
        often be working against existing code bases and the like that won't
        have full coverage. In non-XP and unstructured working setups, a
        floating build tag is a primary means of staying sane, right up
        there with tests. This is mainly because developers can avoid
        integration paralysis since they won't be breaking a build by the
        mere act of checking in code.

        Bill de hÓra
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.