Re: [tlug] Continuous Integration

[Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>]

On 12 May 2016 at 11:29, Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> wrote:

> A lot of people say that "CI can't hurt." But beyond the the time wasted
> setting up and administering it, it often drags along things like "you
> can't merge a change into master until it's passed CI," which, for good
> developers, simply introduces unnecessary and costly delay in to the
> release process.

I've had really good experiences with CodeShip.io, which is a hosted
build / CI service. It takes almost no time to set up, and absolutely
no time to maintain.

If requiring passing CI before merging to master is a burden,
something's rotten in the state of Denmark. Continuous Integration
must be automated in order to be continuous. If your integration tests
take an enormous amount of time, that's indicative that there may be
other problems.

> (I've been in organizaitons where though "good practices" such as
> CI, "code review," and other things I've had my development speed
> drastically reduced with no increase whatsoever in quality

Sounds like you've been in some pretty broken organisations. Consulting, I hope?

>From my experience in good and bad teams, if CR and CI slow you down,
there are problems with the team culture or process that need to be
addressed.

Good to see that we're disagreeing on stuff again! For awhile, I was
worried that I might have become your American döppelganger! ;)

But seriously, I would love to get a chance to work with you on
something sometime. I think it would be loads of fun, and illustrate
that we probably work in a much more similar way than we both think.
:)

Cheers,
Josh