4 ms·
I don’t doubt anything you’re saying, either. I was just providing another perspective. I think one thing I have seen over the years is people making extreme a
by subharmonicon 3y ago
I don’t doubt anything you’re saying, either. I was just providing another perspective.
I think one thing I have seen over the years is people making extreme assumptions based on experiences they hear via the grapevine, and seeing more perspectives seems like one way to counter that.
For example I have seen the claim here that CI systems were somehow new in the same timeframe that XP and Scrum were first written about and being adopted, and that testing was always an afterthought back then, etc.
If anything I think we were often building more reliable and higher quality systems in that timeframe, if only because there was more alignment that testing and fixing bugs mattered. Today I get responses like “quality isn’t just about bugs” if I am critical about the quality of a particular product. As if what users want is 2N as many features, none of which quite work rather than N features that are all solid.
- michael1999 3y agoMy memory was that CI was kinda new in 2000. What were you using? Hudson came out in 2005. Cruise Control was 2001, which was we adopted to replace our hand cranked shell scripts on CVS hooks.
- subharmonicon 3y agoIt was a completely custom system built by another internal team at the company I was at. Once word got out, other people copied the system and tailored it for their needs. So it was definitely not a general purpose reusable system. I’ve talked to other people working at other large companies in the 90’s and they had similar experiences. I think either multiple people at different places recognized the need and value of systems like these before they were widely written about, or word was getting around in some circles. Not sure which.