[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: refactoring when using CVS

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:15:38 -0500 (EST)

[ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 08:09:28 (-0800), Noel Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: refactoring when using CVS
> I would argue that "All code must have unit tests" is
> as practically unenforcible as "All commits must have
> comments" since enforcing such rules using tools would
> just get garbage tests and comments.

You're obviously forgetting that peer pressure and management rules, in
combination with the necessary reviews forced by a two-phase commit,
ensure that no code gets commited without valid and useful unit tests.

>  I would also
> argue that enforcing "All code must pass all unit
> tests before it can be released" is the job of the
> version control tool (although it is part of the
> overall SCM picture), but propertly supporting
> moves/renames under refactoring is.

Exactly -- which is why Aegis is better at it because it fails any
commit if there are problems with any unit test, and it runs every unit
test for every commit (or at least it can be configured to do so).

> > Indeed, and refactoring in the XP way doesn't occur
> > across the
> > development of multiple change sets, but only within
> > the development of
> > one change set and thus the integration of
> > refactored code won't
> > distrupt development.
> Nope.  As (I think) Kaz had posted previously, CVS
> doesn't handle well (if at all) concurrent development
> while move/renames are occurring.

I think you've missed a point, again.  XP implies there is little, or
no, concurrent development -- concurrency happens only within a pair and
since pairs only commit one at a time there's no time for conflict,
especially not because of renames in change sets.

> >   You don't even need a bloody computer to do
> > XP -- you could have
> > all the typing, compiling, and testing done by the
> > QA team!  ;-)
> You know, of course, that this joke supports the
> statement that CVS isn't ideal for XP (or maybe XP
> isn't ideal for CVS :-).

No, it doesn't really -- it just means that the choice of version
tracking tool is irrelevant to this methodology.

                                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>;  <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

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