[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Developer branches

From: Steve Ebersole
Subject: Re: Developer branches
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:59:58 GMT

Thanks for the reply.  I performed the search you mentioned and found the
following message   ).
However, that message also sugessts searching on "submit/assemble" which
seems to imply I did not find the one you intended.

Anyway, the message I did find was also posted by you and I totally agreed
with what you were saying.  Especially: <differentiation between
"checked-in code" and "code that is eligible for the build."> is exactly
what we are trying to accomplish.  I was tagged as the build script writer
(we are using Ant which is a great java-based alternative to make); we have,
as of yet, been unable to perform a successful build precisely because
everyone is checking in code which does not compile with work of other

This is my first project using CVS (and actually the first for everyone on
the team) and I was lucky enough to also be tagged as the CVS admin.  So my
experience here is extremely limited and the learning curve pretty steep.
But after reading the docs, I had been leaning towards a single branch
tagged as DEV on which all developers would perform their work.  However, I
have been starting to realize that branching is really just delaying the
point at which these "inconsistencies" will be discovered, and then putting
all the effort of correcting them on the release manager who is responsible
for moving things from the branches to the trunck.

However, I don't think I really liked the idea of tags to perform this step
because it is either adding responsibilities back on the developers to tag
their code which is ready for build release (which the idea alone of them
making that decision scares me) or back onto the release manager to
determine what is eligible for release to build.  We are a team of 6 and the
project is huge, so adding any substantial additional work to one person's
plate could be detrimental.

What was the jist of the "hand-off" process you were mentioning in the above
archived message?

Maybe we just need to add an additional role of "second-level" tester to 2-3
people's plates and have them determine whether things are ready for build
and tag/merge things appropriately.

"Paul Sander" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> Another approach that doesn't require developers to perform as many merges
> is to implement a hand-off procedure that declares certain versions as
> eligible for the build.  This can be as simple as applying tags, or it
> be more complicated.  That way, the developers and the builders can share
> the same branch and yet still have some recourse if someone commits
> Check the info-cvs archives for "submit/assemble" for discussion of one
> successful method that doesn't rely on tags.
> --- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
> We are using CVS to store Java source code.  Currently, all developers in
> the project are directly commiting against HEAD.  We would like (as much
> possible) to keep HEAD in a stable state and so would like to start using
> branches to create a dev environment.
> Is this better approached by creating a single DEV branch or creating
> seperate dev branches for each individual developer?  What are people's
> experiences with either approach?
> --- End of forwarded message from address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]