Timeline for How many developers before continuous integration becomes effective for us?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2012 at 9:40 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | @Carnotaurus: Well, d'ah. | |
| May 22, 2012 at 9:36 | history | edited | Binary Worrier | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 137 characters in body |
| May 4, 2012 at 7:55 | comment | added | Steve Bennett | Agree that it's not proportional to the number of devs. I once set up a CI server to solve the problem that shippable builds were extremely time consuming (essentially a full developer day). But in that instance, the typical benefits of CI (immediate notification of bugs etc) were really just a bonus. | |
| Feb 4, 2012 at 12:16 | comment | added | user23157 | @BinaryWorrier - I think step 1 is checking in the code ;) | |
| Jan 1, 2012 at 10:53 | comment | added | Phil Helix | @BinaryWorrier Nothing else to do? There is if the hosting environment is outside your control but that's got nothing to do with CI. | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 11:42 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | @Carnotaurus: "Release" for me means Release out of Dev, so yes, releasing internally to QA/Test etc. However the important thing is once that release passes QA, you have nothing else to do to Release it into the wild. | |
| Jun 10, 2011 at 19:19 | comment | added | Phil Helix | How can you say that when CI is set up to facilitate testing visibility and that just because something builds does not mean that it is ready for release or do you mean ready for internal testing? | |
| Apr 6, 2011 at 6:50 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | @Carnotaurus: Sorry mate, but I'm not sure I know what you're trying to say. CI has nothing to do with testing. Yes, you can - and should - run unit tests as part of the build, but they shouldn't be dependant on anything that isn't setup as part of the test. However CI does aid testing. One of the - many - benefits of CI is that it allows a QA team to immediately & seemlessly pickup new code changes. CI = The Ability To Release Immediately | |
| Apr 5, 2011 at 16:52 | comment | added | Phil Helix | I still cannot buy the idea of single step CI - there is nothing easy than just deploying simple software and than doing a full regression test | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 10:09 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | Actually, even if you have a trivially simple build it's worth doing fir all the other benefits, but rapid deployment is a bacon saving insurance that CANNOT be under estimated! | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 9:57 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | No, it just the number of steps. If your build\deploy task is simple, you can live without CI. However this ability to realease at a moments notice (to client, to QA, to stress test etc) is the core of CI. The other things, knowing immediately if the build is broken, automated running of unit test, visibility of code changes to the team, are all very valuable side effects of CI. | |
| Apr 3, 2011 at 7:28 | comment | added | Phil Helix | So it's fair to say that it depends on the complexity of what is to be released, measured by its number of steps to deployment as being able to "test" separate layers? | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 12:51 | comment | added | Binary Worrier | @murph: Yup, and it brings little advantages like 1) knowing what's in your repository will build, 2) single click build, 3) being able to release a version at a moments notice and So much more | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 12:18 | comment | added | Murph | +1 - I've quite a lot I could add to the above - but this is very close to the core of why I like CI... not only for what it does but also for what it requires you to do to make it work (those requirements being things you really ought to do anyway). | |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 12:08 | history | edited | Binary Worrier | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 40 characters in body; added 1 characters in body; added 8 characters in body |
| Apr 2, 2011 at 12:02 | history | answered | Binary Worrier | CC BY-SA 2.5 |