On 8/9/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (2) Strict non-breakage policies on the trunk. Successful build = full > > test passage. > > i'm not sure i agree here. obviously we can't have ppl commiting code that > is 25% complete or code that is completely broken, but who does that anyways? > i think most of us develop a feature in our own workspace and only commit it > when we believe it's reasonably complete.
Heh, Allen (as a relatively late-comer) isn't familiar with the Lavandowska "it's good enough" Principle. I've often committed code that just-barely does what it is intended to do. Often it's provided as a proof-of-concept, intended to elicit feedback and cooperation, that gets pushed into production. Now this mostly came about when we didn't do branches (I think because none of us were familiar/comfortable enough with them). Now that I've trimmed my code contributions down to once-per-year I think there is much less danger from the Lavandowska Principle. Lance
