Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] What's happened to Ryppl?
From: Matthieu Brucher (matthieu.brucher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-28 11:13:24

>
> I would prefer a model where there is a highly developed suite of test code
> (actually, I find it is often best if one begins with the tests first - but
> sometimes that is not practical), unit tests, integration tests and
> usability tests, and nothing gets checked in unless the code base plus the
> new code not only compiles, but the developer can show that with his
> implemented changes, the system still passes all tests.  And note, his new
> code must come with a test suite of its own, and must pass through a code
> review before we accept that his tests are adequate and thus before he can
> run the full test suite.  With this model, it happens that new code
> stresses
> existing code in initially unexpected ways, revealing previously undetected
> bugs.  But at the same time, it makes it less likely that new code will
> introduce a significant number of new bugs when it is approved to be
> commited to the codebase.  And this means that while the new code that is
> approved to be commited will have the same number of bugs per thousand
> lines
> of code that most other programmers experience in their code, the number of
> bugs per thousand lines of code can only decrease.  And where the version
> control software in place does not support a given detail of this model
> (and
> note, this model can be made to work even with something as primitive as
> RCS
> or CVS), we need a manual process to make it work.  In my practice, no
> member of my team commits anything until we know it works with everything
> already in the repository - no exceptions.  This means that sometimes a
> programmer will work on an assigned task for days, or even a week, without
> commiting changes to the repository.

I agree with except for the latest phrase. This is exactly what DVCS shines
at, BUT you can commit regularly. Why is this important? To have small
increments that helps bisecting for bugs. Of course, you don't commit to the
main repository each time, of course, it has to be reviewed, of course it
has to pass all the tests... but in addition, you get the history, and I was
saved many times by this feature (and of course, it has to compile each
time, because without this, you can't bisect ;)).

Cheers,

Matthieu

-- 
Information System Engineer, Ph.D.
Blog: http://matt.eifelle.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher