3 ms·
> This all came together for me when I was catching up on YouTube and stumbled across Dave Farley's video Continuous Integration vs Feature Branch Workflow I r
by 3np 5y ago
> This all came together for me when I was catching up on YouTube and stumbled across Dave Farley's video Continuous Integration vs Feature Branch Workflow
I really wish he didn’t overload the term "Continuous Integration” to also mean "workflow without feature branches". It will surely cause a lot of confusion to those who aren’t fully down with the concepts already.
I can already foresee a small startup where the CTO-by-confidence/coincidence and one of the "senior" devs are having extremely heated circular arguments about the pros and cons of CI, not even talking about the same thing.
OPs "trunk-based development" seems like a more suitable term for what they’re describing.
- couchand 5y agoI'm not sure what distinction you're drawing. Continuous integration is entirely synonymous with trunk-based development. It's true that as an industry we've overloaded the term Continuous Integration to mean build servers running automated tests (I just did so in a comment in this thread!), but that's where the overload is.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 3np 5y agoThe overload is the absence of feature-branches and PR/MRs with review. A git-flow-like model and CI are fully compatible. OPs model is explicitly incompatible.