<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is branching the answer? There is a better way&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231</link>
	<description>Ed Taekema's Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:21:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Advanced Version Control Software with Change Sets &#171; Road Warrior Collaboration</title>
		<link>http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231&#038;cpage=1#comment-46154</link>
		<dc:creator>Advanced Version Control Software with Change Sets &#171; Road Warrior Collaboration</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231#comment-46154</guid>
		<description>[...] a track back from my post &#8220;Is Branching the Answer?&#8220;, I found this article on an Accurev blog that largely agreed with my misgivings about using [...]&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;46154&#039;,&#039;Advanced Version Control Software with Change Sets &#171; Road Warrior Collaboration&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;46154&#039;,&#039;Advanced Version Control Software with Change Sets &#171; Road Warrior Collaboration&#039;,&#039;&#091;...&#093; a track back from my post &#8220;Is Branching the Answer?&#8220;, I found this article on an Accurev blog that largely agreed with my misgivings about using &#091;...&#093;&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a track back from my post &#8220;Is Branching the Answer?&#8220;, I found this article on an Accurev blog that largely agreed with my misgivings about using [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('46154','Advanced Version Control Software with Change Sets &amp;#171; Road Warrior Collaboration'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('46154','Advanced Version Control Software with Change Sets &amp;#171; Road Warrior Collaboration','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93; a track back from my post &amp;#8220;Is Branching the Answer?&amp;#8220;, I found this article on an Accurev blog that largely agreed with my misgivings about using &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Whither branches? &#171; Software Configuration Management</title>
		<link>http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231&#038;cpage=1#comment-46042</link>
		<dc:creator>Whither branches? &#171; Software Configuration Management</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:17:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231#comment-46042</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] author of &#8220;Is branching the answer?&#8221;Ã‚Â poses several interesting and important observations about the limitations of branching as a means [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('46042','Whither branches? &amp;laquo; Software Configuration Management'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('46042','Whither branches? &amp;laquo; Software Configuration Management','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93; author of &amp;#8220;Is branching the answer?&amp;#8221;&Atilde;‚&Acirc;&nbsp;poses several interesting and important observations about the limitations of branching as a means &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Taekema</title>
		<link>http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231&#038;cpage=1#comment-45497</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Taekema</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231#comment-45497</guid>
		<description>I think it comes down to the size of what you promote ... if it is large change like an entire enhancement request .. it might impact continuous integration ... but if the changes are tracked at a level somewhat smaller and also promoted that way, it should be fine.  

The other thing to consider is that the granularity of promotions needs to change as the process gets closer to release or production.  For instance, early promotions from sub team to whole team can be done in small chunks, but when promotions target testing and eventually production or release, the promotions are increasingly larger, or incorporate larger sets of changes. 

In my experience using Telelogic Synergy, this is accomplished by defining a CM Process that starts by promoting the developer defined change set (Task in Synergy speak) but then transitioning to Change Request promotion for promoting to testing environments and production. In Synergy&#039;s case, Change Requests group a set of related Tasks.  I think this flexible approach to promotion works really well and doesn&#039;t have some of the problems of a file - branch method I outlined above.&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;45497&#039;,&#039;Ed Taekema&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;45497&#039;,&#039;Ed Taekema&#039;,&#039;I think it comes down to the size of what you promote ... if it is large change like an entire enhancement request .. it might impact continuous integration ... but if the changes are tracked at a level somewhat smaller and also promoted that way, it should be fine.  \n\nThe other thing to consider is that the granularity of promotions needs to change as the process gets closer to release or production.  For instance, early promotions from sub team to whole team can be done in small chunks, but when promotions target testing and eventually production or release, the promotions are increasingly larger, or incorporate larger sets of changes. \n\nIn my experience using Telelogic Synergy, this is accomplished by defining a CM Process that starts by promoting the developer defined change set (Task in Synergy speak) but then transitioning to Change Request promotion for promoting to testing environments and production. In Synergy\&#039;s case, Change Requests group a set of related Tasks.  I think this flexible approach to promotion works really well and doesn\&#039;t have some of the problems of a file - branch method I outlined above.&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it comes down to the size of what you promote &#8230; if it is large change like an entire enhancement request .. it might impact continuous integration &#8230; but if the changes are tracked at a level somewhat smaller and also promoted that way, it should be fine.  </p>
<p>The other thing to consider is that the granularity of promotions needs to change as the process gets closer to release or production.  For instance, early promotions from sub team to whole team can be done in small chunks, but when promotions target testing and eventually production or release, the promotions are increasingly larger, or incorporate larger sets of changes. </p>
<p>In my experience using Telelogic Synergy, this is accomplished by defining a CM Process that starts by promoting the developer defined change set (Task in Synergy speak) but then transitioning to Change Request promotion for promoting to testing environments and production. In Synergy&#8217;s case, Change Requests group a set of related Tasks.  I think this flexible approach to promotion works really well and doesn&#8217;t have some of the problems of a file &#8211; branch method I outlined above.
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('45497','Ed Taekema'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('45497','Ed Taekema','I think it comes down to the size of what you promote ... if it is large change like an entire enhancement request .. it might impact continuous integration ... but if the changes are tracked at a level somewhat smaller and also promoted that way, it should be fine.  \n\nThe other thing to consider is that the granularity of promotions needs to change as the process gets closer to release or production.  For instance, early promotions from sub team to whole team can be done in small chunks, but when promotions target testing and eventually production or release, the promotions are increasingly larger, or incorporate larger sets of changes. \n\nIn my experience using Telelogic Synergy, this is accomplished by defining a CM Process that starts by promoting the developer defined change set (Task in Synergy speak) but then transitioning to Change Request promotion for promoting to testing environments and production. In Synergy\'s case, Change Requests group a set of related Tasks.  I think this flexible approach to promotion works really well and doesn\'t have some of the problems of a file - branch method I outlined above.'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Minick</title>
		<link>http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231&#038;cpage=1#comment-45479</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Minick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:32:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fishandcross.com/blog/?p=231#comment-45479</guid>
		<description>Managing promotion in source control does a pretty nice job of isolating teams from each-other but that extra slowness does impact the value of any continuous integration you do. There&#039;s a need to strike a balance there. 

But once you get into testing, I think source code promotion has really run its course. You don&#039;t test source code outside of static analysis. Most teams test built binaries of some sort. The problem then is about managing builds and tests of those builds as they move through the SDLC.&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;45479&#039;,&#039;Eric Minick&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;45479&#039;,&#039;Eric Minick&#039;,&#039;Managing promotion in source control does a pretty nice job of isolating teams from each-other but that extra slowness does impact the value of any continuous integration you do. There\&#039;s a need to strike a balance there. \n\nBut once you get into testing, I think source code promotion has really run its course. You don\&#039;t test source code outside of static analysis. Most teams test built binaries of some sort. The problem then is about managing builds and tests of those builds as they move through the SDLC.&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Managing promotion in source control does a pretty nice job of isolating teams from each-other but that extra slowness does impact the value of any continuous integration you do. There&#8217;s a need to strike a balance there. </p>
<p>But once you get into testing, I think source code promotion has really run its course. You don&#8217;t test source code outside of static analysis. Most teams test built binaries of some sort. The problem then is about managing builds and tests of those builds as they move through the SDLC.
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('45479','Eric Minick'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('45479','Eric Minick','Managing promotion in source control does a pretty nice job of isolating teams from each-other but that extra slowness does impact the value of any continuous integration you do. There\'s a need to strike a balance there. \n\nBut once you get into testing, I think source code promotion has really run its course. You don\'t test source code outside of static analysis. Most teams test built binaries of some sort. The problem then is about managing builds and tests of those builds as they move through the SDLC.'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
