Fossil

Check-in [924bf44d39]
Login

Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login to enable hyperlinks.

Overview
Comment:Added a few paras to section 3.0 in rebaseharm.md, giving consequences of siloed development in Socratic fashion.
Downloads: Tarball | ZIP archive | SQL archive
Timelines: family | ancestors | descendants | both | trunk
Files: files | file ages | folders
SHA3-256: 924bf44d398461d03ac1eb1ccc058928260ebe789ec61cd23c86b39186b7ddb5
User & Date: wyoung 2019-09-13 09:25:05
Context
2019-09-13
10:46
Added section "2.8 Test Before Commit" to the fossil-v-git doc. check-in: e5ba45788b user: wyoung tags: trunk
09:25
Added a few paras to section 3.0 in rebaseharm.md, giving consequences of siloed development in Socratic fashion. check-in: 924bf44d39 user: wyoung tags: trunk
09:23
Assorted grammar and spelling fixes in www/rebaseharm.md. Also added named anchors to all of the sections. check-in: cd689b3813 user: wyoung tags: trunk
Changes
Hide Diffs Unified Diffs Ignore Whitespace Patch

Changes to www/rebaseharm.md.

131
132
133
134
135
136
137













138
139
140
141
142
143
144
to bugs, and hence makes them less productive.  Many developers are
drawn to private branches out of sense of ego.  "I want to get the
code right before I publish it."  I sympathize with this sentiment,
and am frequently guilty of it myself.  It is humbling to display
your stupid mistake to the whole world on an internet that
never forgets.  And yet, humble programmers generate better code.














## <a name="testing"></a>4.0 Rebase commits untested check-ins to the blockchain

Rebase adds new check-ins to the blockchain without giving the operator
an opportunity to test and verify those check-ins.  Just because the
underlying three-way merge had no conflict does not mean that the resulting
code actually works.  Thus, rebase runs the very real risk of adding
non-functional check-ins to the permanent record.







>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>







131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
to bugs, and hence makes them less productive.  Many developers are
drawn to private branches out of sense of ego.  "I want to get the
code right before I publish it."  I sympathize with this sentiment,
and am frequently guilty of it myself.  It is humbling to display
your stupid mistake to the whole world on an internet that
never forgets.  And yet, humble programmers generate better code.

What is the fastest path to solid code? Is it to continue staring at
your private branch to seek out every last bug, or is it to publish it
as-is, whereupon the many eyeballs will immediately see that last stupid
error in the code? Testing and development are often done by separate
groups within a larger software development organization, because
developers get too close to their own code to see every problem in it.

Given that, is it better for those many eyeballs to find your problems
while they’re still isolated on a feature branch, or should that vetting
wait until you finally push a collapsed version of a private working
branch to the parent repo? Will the many eyeballs even see those errors
when they’re intermingled with code implementing some tasty new feature?

## <a name="testing"></a>4.0 Rebase commits untested check-ins to the blockchain

Rebase adds new check-ins to the blockchain without giving the operator
an opportunity to test and verify those check-ins.  Just because the
underlying three-way merge had no conflict does not mean that the resulting
code actually works.  Thus, rebase runs the very real risk of adding
non-functional check-ins to the permanent record.