testing, staging, deployment processes

Levi Pearson levipearson at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 10:37:44 MDT 2011

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:24 AM, S. Dale Morrey <sdalemorrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> And if you are really agile make sure to use git.  I've found that git
> is much more conducive to an agile workflow in an office setting than
> SVN is.
> When I was working in arizona we increased productivity by 75% and
> reduced reworks by 50% simply by switching to git since it matched the
> workflow much better.  On the otherhand if you are a large org with
> waterfall, SVN fits the typical model much better.
> Just make sure your software development model matches your
> organizations style and accountability models and not the other way
> around.
> Too many projects fail when an agile company tries to do it the
> waterfall way and vice versa.

While I think your advice has been great, I'm not sure why you keep
referring to more structured releases as 'waterfall'.  Not every kind
of product can be continuously released, that's pretty much only an
option for service-type products.  You can have an extended release
schedule and thus need release and maintenance branches and the
discipline surrounding them even if your day-to-day development is
very agile.

I agree that SVN is probably not the best tool for the sorts of
workflows that have been discussed, but git (which definitely a
reasonable choice) isn't the only game in town either.  Switching
source control systems can be expensive in terms of developing a good
workflow and retraining everyone, though, so it's not a matter to be
taken on lightly.


More information about the PLUG mailing list