On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 18:13 +0000, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > On 01/07/2013 03:21 PM, Ted Gould wrote: > > > > I think that's the issue, you should be saying "We need to fix bug > > 1234" not "Trunk was known broken, why aren't you focusing on my > > problem RIGHT NOW." > > > LEAN development treats a broken trunk as a stop-the-line problem, > which is exactly "fix it RIGHT NOW". A broken trunk, or tests failing, > is a stop-the-line issue at any shop that takes quality seriously.
To be clear, we're not talking about a failing trunk, we're talking about failing integration testing (my fault in the example above). Usually these are the types of failures that require investigation and may not be directly related to the project at hand. Serious, most definitely. But understanding the trade offs and time commitments is also important for these types of failures. Honestly, I think we're beyond the level of "trunk breaks" in our quality processes. That's for LEAN processes that allow developers to commit to trunk. I think we're more mature than that (or at least on the cusp) for most of our projects. Our bigger problem there is that we don't have comprehensive enough unit tests to have reasonable faith that we're not screwing integration further down the line. Ted
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
