Timeline for What is the best way to allow a client to contribute to a project?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2012 at 3:49 | comment | added | MathAttack | @JustinC - I hear you. One of my projects has half am FTE just keeping two defect repositories in synch. | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 22:39 | comment | added | JustinC | There might be political or economic reasons why either side is hesitant to give up control or grant access, but if the goal is to work together, simultaneously, neither side will be effective without first negotiating control. Eg. who is in charge of and caretaker of the master, how are disputes about the master resolved, and how will you transition control from the master back to the client (if you as the contracting firm maintain and control the master). | |
| Feb 15, 2012 at 22:30 | comment | added | JustinC | I agree, but as for as one of the technical concerns, each organization having their own repository and toolchain is fine, but if that is the route you go with, declaring a 'master' source is crucial: either yours, theirs, or a seperately maintained 'shared master.' Without a 'master' the ability to integrate and piecewise revert will be, not might be, problematic, as OP suspects. A single 'master' repository would simplify mapping tests and defects back to a single source version, instead of having a double mapping first to the master version, and then to each independant, 'local' copy. | |
| Feb 12, 2012 at 16:27 | history | answered | MathAttack | CC BY-SA 3.0 |