Bible Black Subbed Online

Continuous Integration as solution in Economic Meltdown?

Everyone has their own vision but the hallmark of this economic phase is that almost all technical areas are focused IT ... available on budget!
Budget they are today, even more that in the past, the real driver of what you can do or not do ...
"In Economic meltdown CFO is a CIO!" and never as now, in all reality, maybe this is true!
The Economic meltdown will probably be the tomb of what has already proved ineffective in recent years ... The rigid organizational department (80) that "produce" only conflicts of competence (and we already knew that right !)... swept away so ...
But equally blown away also the model (year 2000) on which they had pinned many hopes instead of Creative Software Factory ....
model, the latter showed the rope unfortunately for profits too low or no cost ... a substantial R & D continuum
... Something like the Americans do but they have proven experience the Venture Capitalist ... a "real" R & D in Europe let's face it ... no one really knows how to do ... neither the public nor the private ... Unfortunately
other established models are currently not in sight, they are looking for all the rest.
The only thing that maybe you can do, according to recommended best practices, at least for the areas of technical expertise, is to get as close as possible the demands of:

a) Time to market
b) Business Continuity

Basically speed of deployment and platform stability.
The only architectural models compatible to handle both these requirements are perhaps the Perpetual Beta Continuous Integration & ... also because it allows to compress , (because it operated in automatic mode!) costs of different roles ( tester, operation, management, software developer ).

are models for which every day would agree to rotate slowly platforms and infrastructure software.

project management discipline there is also profound changes taking place and the profile of PM & Manager traditional mere pushers & dispatcher activity, are showing in the cord, too ... In fact
is increasingly making its way to the reference model of PM & Manager with strong technical skills ... business and attention to costs, profits and budget ....
These are ideal for those PM connector between technical areas and business and these are Profiles of the real catalysts activity and charged to businesses.
difficult problems arise with these profiles of efficiency and effectiveness of the structures ... because it is managers who have already demonstrated in the field, and all the teams involved, to be technical and business experts at the same time ...

From

My Company Resticts On Line Streaming

Do you wanna be an Architect when you grow up?

- Is Design Dead?
Chief Scientist Martin Fowler, ThoughtWorks

an Architect Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up?
For much of the last decade, the term "software architect" has Become popular. It's a term Personally That Is Difficult for me to use. My wife is a structural engineer. The relationship between engineers and architects is ... interesting. My favorite was "architects are good for the three B's: bulbs, bushes, birds". The notion is that architects come up with all these pretty drawings, but it's the engineers who have to ensure that they actually can stand up. As a result I've avoided the term software architect, after all if my own wife can't treat me with professional respect what chance do I stand with anyone else?
In software, the term architect means many things. (In software any term means many things.) In general, however it conveys a certain gravitas, as in "I'm not just a mere programmer - I'm an architect". This may translate into "I'm an architect now - I'm too important to do any programming". The question then becomes one of whether separating yourself from the mundane programming effort is something you should do when you want to exercise technical leadership.
This question generates an enormous amount of emotion. I've seen people get very angry at the thought that they don't have a role any more as architects. "There is no place in XP for experienced architects" is often the cry I hear.
Much as in the role of design itself, I don't think it's the case that XP does not value experience or good design skills. Indeed many of the proponents of XP - Kent Beck, Bob Martin, and of course Ward Cunningham - are those from whom I have learned much about what design is about. However it does mean that their role changes from what a lot of people see as a role of technical leadership.
As an example, I'll cite one of our technical leaders at ThoughtWorks: Dave Rice. Dave has been through a few life-cycles and has assumed the unofficial mantle of technical lead on a fifty person project. His role as leader means spending a lot of time with all the programmers. He'll work with a programmer when they need help, he looks around to see who needs help. A significant sign is where he sits. As a long term ThoughtWorker, he could pretty well have any office he liked. He shared one for a while with Cara, the release manager. However in the last few months he moved out into the open bays where the programmers work (using the open "war room" style that XP favors.) This is important to him because this way he sees what's going on, and is available to lend a hand wherever it's needed.
Those who know XP will realize that I'm describing the explicit XP role of Coach. Indeed one of the several games with words that XP makes is that it calls the leading technical figure the "Coach". The meaning is clear: in XP technical leadership is shown by teaching the programmers and helping them make decisions. It's one that requires good people skills as well as good technical skills. Jack Bolles at XP 2000 commented that there is little room now for the lone master.
Collaboration and teaching are keys to success.

What Type Of Carb Yamaha Phazer

Continuous Integration is an Attitude

From http://jamesshore.com/Blog/Continuous-Integration-is-an-Attitude.html
by James Shore - 18 Aug, 2005

Contrary to popular belief, continuous integration is an attitude, not a tool. It's a shared agreement by the team that:

- When we get the latest code from the repository, it will always build successfully and pass all tests.
-We will check in our code every two to four hours.

There's lots of ways to make this happen, but they tend to be a variation on this theme:

- Before check-in, run the build and tests and make sure they pass.
- Tell people not to update from the repository because you're doing an integration.
- Check in.
- Go to a different machine (often a dedicated "integration machine"), get the latest code from the repository, and make sure latest changes build and pass there, too.
- Done--tell people they can update again.

The purpose of step indicated as "Go to a different machine" is to make sure that the code will work on everybody's machine, not just the machine of the guy who wrote the code. You tell people not to update just in case it doesn't work. If it doesn't, you have to fix it or roll back your changes. Either way, people won't ever have a problem with getting code that doesn't work ...