认为“最佳做法”只是一种可以反复实施的单一方法。 它为了解你的项目提供了一种途径。 它确保每个人都知道正在发生什么。 它确保每个人都对这一进程完全信任。 它确保你确切了解你产品中的内容。

各种类型的“hints:人们重复并超越最佳做法: 抗药性、早期发现缺陷、使一切自动化、变幻无常的发展、带小ites子而不是进行大规模改变、不破坏建筑等等。 但是,这些只是达到目的的手段。 牢记大局。

我还认为,向使用这些工具的人出售这些工具是绝对重要的,也许你认为这种优势对开发商来说是巨大的。 开发商希望能够拿到他们所需要的档案,进行修改,并检查其变化。 无论他们是武力还是颠覆还是恐怖主义。 他们不关心变化或原子检查。 他们不关心互联网的分支。 他们只是想知道他们重新审视了正确的档案,如果他们作出改变,就会兑现。 如果你再出售颠覆活动,你会告诉开发商如何改进工作,使其生活更加容易。

事情也很简单。 与SCM的联系最好。 如果人们发现这一进程是艰巨的,他们就会尽自己的最大努力来完成这一进程。

灵魂只是从你的问题中引出的;) 试图避免在做事时损失太多的东西。

回答这些问题。

<>>? 如果是的话,交流相互矛盾变化的最佳方式是什么?

我知道,在这项工作相互融合(合并)之前,没有任何主流源控制软件就可能相互矛盾的工作发出执行良好的通知。 除了DRY和C. 结 论orbin 3月提到的关切分离之外,我认为,“日复一日”、“日报”、“承诺往往”和“晚餐”(见下文)是面包和utter。

提前交割是有限度的。 免税和依赖你的双轨制/任务安排制度,只应当承诺完成全部的工作。

确实,在你遇到无法解决的源性冲突时,要求帮助的社会技能并不多。

<>I'm Planning tostaling a C. 结 论MS as well.<>2.。 因此,我的团队可以撰写或告知,他们有分支机构等,但我不知道是否有其他工具追踪我们项目的历史健康和丑闻。

This sounds like a pretty "distributed" approach. Not as in location but as in responsibility. You are creating software products and do some sort of release occasionaly do you? Therefore responsibility should increase and focus the further "downstream" it gets. The only branches the whole team should be familar with are the release branches for fixing things (no features there) and your mainline (trunk). All other things, feature-branches, integration branches, "backup" branches, private branches etc. are to be managed by those requesting or enforcing them. Why should you or colleague "A" care that colleague "B" branched the mainline to develop his experimental feature in peace? C. 结 论olleague "B" by developing something groundbreaking, has the responsibility for his branch and to keep it C. 结 论OMPATIBLE with the mainline. Either constantly by merging changes from the mainline to his branch or before reintegration of his new code. Research integration branches if you want to know more.

工具。 在特别志愿人员(Jira, trac, mantis, Redmine )内完全融合的任何助推器都应从事这项工作。 但我不理解这个问题的这一部分与你的冲突问题有何关系。

3.。 即使我的公司采用统一管理办法,那么,我能如何说服或强制向高级方案人员进行社会交流,而不打破无形的“高级”等级?。

我认为,你高估了在油井工作流程中所需的通信量。 你提到的情况表明,你公司缺乏工作流程,你在根本上与冲突作斗争(见1和2),在你看来,这增加了沟通的必要,可能会造成不必要的高间接费用。 可能仍然值得考虑的是,有一套C. 结 论MS或某种“I work here”旗帜化系统。

You indicated that some senior developers do not like to talk or socialize so much even in conflict cases where better they should. Don t let them get away with this by doing merges for them. Merges should be done by branch-owners. When conflicts aris, at least one of the conflicting sides has to decide upon the changes. Ideally both sides sit down on the diffs together but not a third party initially uninvolved with the source in question. Failure in conflict solving (selecting the wrong changes) might result in build breakage or, even worse, undetected bugs. People need to be aware.

如果高级开发商“A”(将主线的改动并入其分支)处理冲突,而没有与主要变化与其相冲突的高级开发商“B”交谈,那么担任调解人并不容易。 如果它不喜欢为你越过一条线,则试图与B开发商交谈,说服他接近A,以便更快地解决冲突,减少错误。

But again in the end it is developer "A" s responsibility, not yours. You seem to give an example already to your co-workers. If that is not enough, try to carefully point out that not enough communication was the reason for a broken build when it happens. Maybe talk to one senior in private about your thoughts, be open but not accusive. A "we could to better" sounds nicer than "You guys are doing it wrong". And for you as a younger professional, sentences like "I would feel better about my code if you tell me when it conflicts with yours" might be more appropriate than "You should ask for a second pair of eyes from the right person when you get conflicts", even though the later is more straightforward.

如果这一切都无助于,你可以考虑与你或团队领导讨论你面临的障碍。 如果他不是ool子,他将听。

www.un.org/Depts/DGAC. 结 论M/index_spanish.htm 分配和标签

<>1.>,我不想让其他团队在节目中加入“Hello, World!” 。 我想将分治视为普通的东西。 谁能给我一条在何时增设分支的 rule? 何时合并?

合并见问题4。

For Branching: You are perfectly right with trying to have as few branches as necessary. Branching comes at a price. C. 结 论omplexity, merging overhead etc. I tend to stick to "branch on incompatible policy". What policy you ask? Each of your main branches should have a set of documented rules attached to them.

实例:

• tag-2.0.4
  • no commit allowed
• release-2
  • only fixes for existing features allowed
  • checkins should have release-quality
• trunk
  • must compile/validate
  • Extending developed API allowed
  • renaming and deleting API prohibited
  • only complete bugtracker-issues
  • receives merges from release branches
• feature-apirefactoring
  • may alter the developed API and break compatibility
  • pulling merges from trunk is feature-developers task

你们看到有3个有活力的部门和一个分支。 “地位-收益”是正确应用的“不相容政策”的一个例子。

应利用各处来减少风险和提高效率,分拨不同类型的发展活动。 分支政策单独界定了哪些发展和风险潜力是可以接受的。 • 要求你的tru子更加稳定? 界定新的政策“不采用W3C. 结 论有效器警告”。 如果开拓性的发展工作为了效率而必须打破这一规则,或提供快速的观念证明(我们先放弃,后再清理),那么,它就成为自己分支的良好候选国。

每当你或同事感觉到有人敦促打破一条规则,因为如果NOT遵守某项政策更为简单或更安全,那么你就会讨论一个分支的形成。

2. In what case branching a branch is a good idea? answered above I think :).

一些实例 我碰到:

• Branch stable branch from trunk when release gets prepared (no new features)
• Branch integration branch from feature-branch when integration is too complex and time consuming
• branch a "special edition" release branch from an allready stable release that has some exclusive features or certain possibly unstable differences for a special customer.
• branch a translation-branch from your trunk that gets only wording changes and therefore can not break

另有十几个。 你的政策越受重视,你的分行越是令人 ex。

3. For tagging, my understanding is that tag symbolize a static point of the program ( ie : v1.0, v2.5) is that correct?

是的。 对于颠覆行为,可将其描述为其他内容。 “/tags/1.7.2”可以是项目的状况,因为它正在修订30932。 当某些释放准备就绪时,你可以指出修订数目,并将新的来源进行比较,或对这个较老的国家进行核查。 或者,你可以更容易地记住标签。

颠覆的标签也只不过是一个不接受任何承诺的分支。

<>strong>4.If I establish a Branch andstart written my change, should my team-matesstart syncing from my Branch? 或者他们是否仍在干线上发展? 还是应该为自己设立另一个分支?