|
|
N_tro_P wrote: Builds are extremely complicated.
Perhaps yours are. Our main app is an ASP.Net application. The build takes a few minutes even though we have a massive web app. We wrote a sql script that generates a sql script to create all our objects. It takes about 10 minutes to run but is fully automated.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're so sure I need this, but can't tell me what I build and in what language. Seriously, a holier-than-thou attitude causes me to discount the rest of your lecture as ranting by someone who needs to be right. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a mathematician that uses Fortran to build predictive models. 80% of my work is programming. For front ends I use Win forms built in C#. Myself and another are the sole programmers of the system used here. My builds take a few minutes and I can repeat any of them. The users are analysts within the company. If one has a problem, they call me and I walk down to their desk. The entirety of the project is so close to me and familiar that I don't need such formal techniques. My boss has no idea how I do what I do and my actions require little justification.
I have the luxury of living in the old world of programming before trendy techniques with special names. It's quite pleasant. That stuff just would just slow me down.
So, I think my situation is relevant. I don't know of the technique you espouse, nor do I need to. I have been highly successful so far and don't see that changing.
Thanks for looking out for all of us though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: spending days on a build
I've never used CI nor have I ever seen a build even take a day to do or anywhere close to that. You're experience seems quite strange to me.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a clear example upfront would have gone a long way against all the confusion.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget some extras:
- indirect check of source code integrity ("works on my machine" - but forgot to check-in some files...)
- automatic execution of unit tests
- test coverage reports
- automatic code analysis
- reporting over time
- automatic emails for failures
You may also add automated integration / system tests.
And perhaps many more things depending on your choice.
CI helps to keep our code base clean and reliable.
I hope more people will now be able to see the advantages of CI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That few agree should be a clue. There are many programming realities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's important that I know so move along.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed until proven otherwise!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a fancy word for 'applications that replace build scripts'.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't use 'em <= Don't know what they are.
Looking it up, I've so far found the "BUILD ALL" button adequate for the purpose of "BUILDing ALL".
| 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 are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It's fine for me as well - that's why "I don't use" fit me well.
But...if I was in a medium-to-large team then I can see where it would be very useful, to ensure that different developers aren't working at cross purposes as early as possible so you haven't wasted huge amounts of time when you do try it.
I work on a simple basis: "if it doesn't compile, don't check it in". With a team, anything which extends that to "if it compiles but breaks the whole team build, go forth and multiply" has got to be a bonus! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
So - you caught me as a lone-wolf?
Actually, even when working with someone else, we sit together and figure out what we want and then go do it. Possibly luck, but integration has been seamless and robust. No doubt, if it were a team-size effort, it would be challenging.
Actually that comes back into real life. We've a contractor here and he won't share - he wants details from me/us, but doesn't let me/us in on what he's doing. I won't go into the gory details, but clearly, if one works with an a**hole one should expect it to try to sh^t on you.
| 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 are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: he wants details from me/us, but doesn't let me/us in on what he's doing
Now that is a problem, I would be insisting he check in VERY regularly and then review his stuff.
I agree with OG, a medium+ team can benefit from continuous/automatic integration or builds, we currently have a max of 2 devs on a project so treat them like LWs.
I have worked on a project where we had 10 devs and 3 QAs, smoke test build every Thursday, whoever broke the build bought the first round on Friday, sometimes after staying up all night to fix the build!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
There's no place for him/his group-in-India (surprise! ?) to check in.
They've been with the company a long time (longer than I) and their behavior is institutionalized. I do my stuff and when their stone wall gets in the way I stop. Making sure, however, that the reason I stopped is understood.
Like is common for this type of contractor, they're grasp of abstract solutions is weak: they plod along in text-book fashion and a complete lack of insight. We're not a software company, so a working product, no matter how written, will be acceptable to management.
| 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 are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
If so - to what purpose?
(Not intending to be snarky - just wondering what the ones listed above don't do...)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
