|
The solution has multiple projects(Call it modules) each running on it's own dev-cycle/version sequence.
Module-A Build 1.0.2
Module-B Build 2.0.4
Module-C Build 1.5.3
------------------------
Solution Build __?
Like this, each managed by separate teams.
But as a solution when it goes to the customer,
Can I maintain it like 1.0.0 , 1.0.1 irrespective of what the modules versions are inside?
|
|
|
|
|
It's a situation I faced at a work-place with a Ruby MicroService-based API. The individual microservices and dependent library gems could have independent versions, then the whole delivery to a customer needed a version.
Ultimately, we semantically versioned the 'package'/'deliverable' or in your case 'solution' much the same way an individual component was versioned ie - if ANY subcomponent was breaking, the MAJOR version was changed and so forth
The only issue with all of this we found was we needed to keep a 'store'/database of package/deliverable/solution version vs sub-components delivered, to make diagnostics etc easier
|
|
|
|
|
The VERSION resource has room for both file version and product version.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly the approach we use in our products. File version is used by each developer however they like. Product version is handled by our automated build, and is identical across all build outputs (EXE's, DLL's, etc).
The semi-neat trick behind all of this is the fact that our product is a mix of C#/.NET and C++/MFC. The build process edits a *.h file for the C++ code and a *.cs file for the C# to have the same build information (product version, build date, optional comment).
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
- it goes on for an hour, or more
- there is nothing remotely relevant or interesting for me in it
- it's everyday
I guess on the upside I can think of my Master of Orion adventures.... I have been told it looks like I am not paying attention! (wow, who would have thought?) and, apparently, sometimes there are things that are relevant to me... But I didn't listen! 
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: it goes on for an hour, or more
And I guess you actually spend the first 30 minutes talking about what was on TV the previous evening.
|
|
|
|
|
nah.. I speak for at most 30 seconds each meetings.. and spend the first 30 minutes (and the last 30 too) day dreaming! 
|
|
|
|
|
We had regular afternoon meetings which annoyed me, but now that we don't I sometimes miss them as I feel that I'm getting out of touch with the rest of the people at work.
|
|
|
|
|
It would certainly be an improvement if they felt more like a social moment...  
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: it goes on for an hour, or more
Super Lloyd wrote: it's everyday
Why would anyone have that and why would anyone think that's a good idea?
Your manager must be the anti-productivity.
A daily stand-up shouldn't take more than 15 minutes and I already think that's too long.
Have you tried just flat-out say it?
"Guys, I don't know what I'm doing here so I'm getting back to actually getting things done."
I've done it in the past with mixed results (although the meetings always got shorter)
|
|
|
|
|
I exaggerated, they are more like 45 minutes nowadays... 
And they have about 12 people... some of these can easily speak for 5~10 minute everyday with fresh new or repeating questions...
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't exaggerate.
Chances are, more people are annoyed by this, but no one wants to speak up.
Monday, before the meeting, say something like "can we keep this REALLY short because I think our regular 45 minutes are WAY too long."
Also, 12 people sounds like a lot, are you sure they all need to be there?
If not, you can say so, "I think it doesn't make sense I'm here with x and y because I don't even work with them" or something like that.
45 minutes is still too long, and with everyone getting coffee before and after, the productivity loss is still an hour.
|
|
|
|
|
2 or 3 meetings a day for me, Corona has been a godsend, I can sit at home mic and camera off and do some real work while everyone else rattles on.
|
|
|
|
|
viva corona! 
|
|
|
|
|
Caslen wrote: I can sit at home mic and camera off and do some real work while everyone else rattles on.
Exactly!
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: it goes on for an hour, or morethere is nothing remotely relevant or interesting for me in itit's everyday
Wait, do you work for the same company I work for?
|
|
|
|
|
Get some meeting bingo cards and distribute them to other folks on the meeting. I did this once and called out Bingo in a meeting. The look on the VPs face was priceless when I explained that I had a buzzword bingo card and he just hit not one, but two rows.
|
|
|
|
|
It least we both now realize we're not alone in this experience - except I not only don't have them every day, but on the off chance I do get invited I'm generally "overlooked" for subsequent meetings on the subject. The "penalty" for asking questions.
Oh ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) - you reminded me I have a telephone in meeting today. So much for benevolent forgetfulness. I'll get even with them (at least), shortly.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Try to get another meeting scheduled for the same time slot. Then you can go to neither, and everyone will think it's because you're in the other one.
|
|
|
|
|
I have produced an article on a difficult topic - creating a Socket that can be awaited
I haven't used the task framework enough to explain all of it - just the things I've done before, but some of them have a lot of moving parts, and so are more difficult to explain.
What I'd like is if someone who has some experience with Socket and Task could review it. It's kind of cool code, so I'm not relying purely on your altruism here. Anyway, what I'm after is some feedback about how digestible it is.
If you're interested let me know and I'll link to it.
I really appreciate feedback, but I know most of you are busy with work.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Are you talking about this article How to Implement and Use Awaitable Sockets in C# using TAP ?
If so, at first glance, it's certainly not intended for beginners, and I'm still getting up to speed with 'Tasks' myself.
I'd say two main things -
1) use of acronyms .. even for non beginners, EAP/TAP/APM etc should be expanded once on their first use in the article, just to make sure that your EAP equals my EAP
2) your paragraphs are 'meaty', but I think thats the nature of the advanced material you're presenting
Other than that, its mighty fine
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks so much!
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I like this article. I haven't seen someone use awaitables like this before.
My thoughts:
How the Completed event and OnCompleted callback interact is really not obvious, even from your description of what each individually does. I think the purpose of this setup is so that the continuation passed to OnCompleted will only be executed once the event completes. If Completed fires first, _continuation == _sentinel which triggers the Task.Run(continuation) in OnCompleted. If OnCompleted fires first, _continuation = continuation, so prev = continuation when prev() is executed.
I believe that this entire thing falls apart though if Reset() isn't called after each Completed/OnCompleted trip. If _continuation == continuation from an earlier call, OnCompleted falls through and the current continuation is lost, while Completed executes the previous continuation.
I really want to dive into this when it isn't 2am. I suspect OnCompleted is for completion of pre-await code which is why some of these hoops are needed. Otherwise the ordering of Completed and OnCompleted would be known.
I found two more articles if you wanted to check them out. I only did a cursory overview. It seems like they dive into things in a little more detail but it still wasn't obvious to me how the awaiter methods interact with the overall task architecture.
C# Under the Hood: async/await
Dissecting the async methods in C#
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my thank you! It was murder trying to find information about this. My google-fu just wasn't giving me back much. I was probably asking it the wrong questions. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Found another good one. Also I couldn't sleep because I had to know the answer to this. Kinda funny how OnCompleted is only called if IsCompleted is false It blew my mind when I realized all of the SocketAwaitable code is just for Reset() so you avoid allocating a TaskCompletionSource on each Receive/Send call
Assuming it wasn't a joke, GetResult() isn't called CheckResult() because other awaiters may return a value like a Task<T>'s awaiter. This awaiter implementation doesn't have a return value since that value is returned via the SocketAsyncEventArgs instead.
Thanks for sparking a fun night of learning but now I'm actually off to bed 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
