Difference between revisions of "How to Avoid Branching"
PaulJulius (talk | contribs) |
PaulJulius (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Goal is Continuous Integration | Goal is Continuous Integration | ||
| − | Really we want Faster Feedback | + | '''Really''' we want Faster Feedback |
== Complications: == | == Complications: == | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Branches allow you to circumvent fixing underlying issues in the organization | Branches allow you to circumvent fixing underlying issues in the organization | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Potential Solutions: == | ||
A lot of places could do trunk-based development, but there is resistance like "people will break things" all the time. We have to switch first, experience some pain, but usually shorter than usual. | A lot of places could do trunk-based development, but there is resistance like "people will break things" all the time. We have to switch first, experience some pain, but usually shorter than usual. | ||
| − | + | You might be fine with a well-functioning branching workflow. Why change? Is this the biggest problem to solve? | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 00:27, 18 May 2019
Problem:
Best practices for Trunk-Based Development
Goal is Continuous Integration
Really we want Faster Feedback
Complications:
In monolithic codebases, it's hard to make quick changes
Team members need to have the skills to make the changes
The mindset gets in the way of people making a change from one monolithic build
I want refactor mercilessly
I want to release rapidly
100s of developers, with a big legacy codebases
Branches allow you to circumvent fixing underlying issues in the organization
Potential Solutions:
A lot of places could do trunk-based development, but there is resistance like "people will break things" all the time. We have to switch first, experience some pain, but usually shorter than usual.
You might be fine with a well-functioning branching workflow. Why change? Is this the biggest problem to solve?
