StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

POWhat guidelines should be followed when using an unstable/testing/stable branching scheme?
text
Body
copied!<p>My team is currently using feature branches while doing development. For each user story in our sprint, we create a branch and work it in isolation. Hence, according to Martin Fowler, we practice Continuous Building, not Continuous Integration.</p> <p>I am interested in promoting an unstable/testing/stable scheme, similar to that of Debian, so that code is promoted from unstable => testing => stable.</p> <p>Our definition of <em>done</em>, I'd recommend, is when</p> <ul> <li>unit tests pass (TDD always),</li> <li>minimal documentation is complete,</li> <li>automated functional tests pass, and</li> <li>feature has been demo'd and accepted by PO.</li> </ul> <p>Once accepted by the PO, the story will be merged into the testing branch. Our test developers spend most of their time in this branch banging on the software and continuously running our automated tests. </p> <p>This scares me, however, because commits from another incomplete story may now make it into the testing branch. Perhaps I'm missing something because this seems like an undesired consequence.</p> <p>So, if moving to a code promotion strategy to solve our problems with feature branches, what strategy/guidelines do you recommend? Thanks.</p> <p>Update: Fowler discusses Feature Toggle (<a href="http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureToggle.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://martinfowler.com/bliki/FeatureToggle.html</a>)</p>

Querying!

Guidance

An individual column

Larger individual text columns get their own page to allow for proper reading.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload