I'm currently part of a group of about 35 contributors divided into 4 separate teams, most people check in at least 2-3 times a day, some people 10-15 times it's unusual to see builds broken and extremely rare for them to stay broken for more than a few minutes. Most organizations should be integrating very frequently - as in, several times per day. It especially doesn't make sense with git, because every developer already technically has his/her own repository. Unless you're actually working in a geographically distributed team with a need to "gate" changes from outside developers, the branch-per-developer model really doesn't make much sense. I don't want this to be a rant about why you need CI, but it's clear from your question that you know you aren't integrating your changes often enough, so IMO there's no point in dancing around the issue. These teams generally try to use developer branches as a way to protect the stability of the mainline, and the result is - typically - a long and very painful merge period before the release, followed by an even longer and more painful stabilization period, which sometimes doesn't happen until after the release. Teams and organizations which do not have continuous integration and a track record of instability in their deployments, or worse, instability in their builds. This makes life more difficult for contributors, but much easier for the maintainers, which of course is exactly the point, and this is a very successful model on GitHub. ![]() ![]() The open-source community, where these branches are actually repository forks, so that project maintainers can lock down access to the master repository and require integration through pull requests. I've seen developer branches used in two main scenarios:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |