Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm just curious if the community considers it acceptable to use the term "Code Freeze" for situations where we stop development except for testing and fixing bugs.
Development Situation
We're just finishing up our third and final sprint, which will be followed by a "Code freeze" and 2 weeks of Q/A testing. It is a big release and some components development have transcended all 3 sprints. Historically even though we call it a "Code Freeze" we still commit code to fix bugs.
Problem
Every release I try and correct my manager and co-workers that we should be calling it a "Feature Freeze", because it's pretty obvious that we're going to find bugs and commit code to fix them as soon as we start heavy testing. But they still persist in calling it a "Code Freeze". Sometimes we still have known bugs and declare a "Code Freeze".
The Wikipedia definition seems to agree with me here
Analysis
I suspect that calling these situations a "Code Freeze" is some sort of willful Double Think to provide false confidence to stake holders. Or we are pretending to be in a "Code Freeze" situation because according to Scrum after every sprint we should have a shippable piece of software and it is the expectation we are following Scrum. So we must call it what Scrum expects instead of what it really is.
Conclusion
Am I over analyzing this? I just find it to be unhealthy to ignoring realities of situations and should either give it up calling it something it's not or fix the root problem. Has anybody else had similar experiences with Code Freezes?
Am I over analyzing this?
Yes.
Well, probably. Realistically, you should be thinking twice before making any code changes after the freeze. Bugs should have to pass some severity test, more so if the fix requires potentially-dangerous changes to the codebase or invalidates the testing that's been done. If you're not doing that, then yeah, you're just deluding yourselves.
But if you're not gonna fix any bugs, then freezing the code is kinda pointless: just build and ship it.
Ultimately, what matters is that you all understand what's meant by the label, not the label itself. One big happy Humpty-Dumpty...
We use the term "Feature Complete". All the features are coded and functional, but we're heading into a test pass to confirm that there are no bugs. If there are bugs, we will find them, fix them, and retest. After we're satisfied with the result, we're "Code Complete".
I think, actually, that they are more correct in their interpretation. A feature freeze, to me, would be a halt to introducing new features, but features currently under development could continue to completion or you could schedule some refactoring work to remove technical debt without generating new features. A code freeze brings a halt to all new development, including refactoring -- the only new code allowed is that to fix bugs found during QA. The latter seems to be what your team is doing.
Some people who get into adaptive and agile engineering methodologies like scrum may not realise what you have gotten yourselves into.
The reason for being agile engineering is releasing to your customers whatever that is usable now and gradually build up its usability and features.
If your project is projected to complete in 18 months but if you could have increasingly something usable every 2 months - why not release features every two months rather than wait till the grand holy day 18 months away since either way the project would still last 18 months.
Your customers' requirement might change so giving your customers opportunity to change their mind frequently, before it's too late, results in exhilarated customers.
Someone might release open source module of one of your modules 10 months from now and then you don't have to do much else but integrate that module.
Therefore, scrummers, or at least scrum masters and/or project managers/architects are required by the dynamics of scrum to modularise ... modularise is not good enough; but granularise the project.
You have to granularise your modules to the right size and provide a contract-interface specification for each so that changes within a module is managed within a module. If your module by itself or due to dependence of other modules is unable to satisfy a contract-interface, you have to code-freeze to enable you to broadcast a contract-interface version 1 so that other teams could continue albeit with less than expected features in the next general product release.
A code freeze is a code freeze.
If your code freezes are experiencing frequent thawing delays, your scrum master and product architect are not communicating or not doing their jobs properly. Perhaps, there's no point in trying to impress or acquiesce to your management that they are using some industry fad called agile programming. Or management needs to hire architect and scrum master who are able to design and granularise the project within the skills of the team as well as the expectations of the customers and the technological constraints of the project.
I think there are management elements and their scrum master who do not realise how crucial a good architect is even for a scrum environment and refuse to hire one. A good architect who is able to listen and work with the team is invaluable to the scrumming process because he/she has to constantly adapt the architecture to changing granularities and expectation.
I also think there are management elements and their scrum master who belongs to the other spectrum of the programming universe due to bad experiences with longer development cycles like waterfall, who therefore think that scrum is meant to produce a product within a month and therefore meticulous investigation into cross-modules effects is not really necessary. They sit down, wet their fingers in the air and come up with a great sprint.
If your team is experiencing frequent thawing of code freezes, you guys might need to code-freeze your whole project and rethink your strategy and see that the cause is due to your refusal to define module contracts that fit the granularity of modules. Or are you guys defining module contracts at all to so that features of a stuck module could be currently rarefied to enable other teams or modules to continue.
Do you guys have a UML strategy that aids in discovering the projected features of a project release and allows you to see the effects of a stranded module and then see which module needs focus to reach a desired product release level? Are you attending scrums and sprints and you have no picture of an UML to show how advanced or delayed you are so that you are just bumping yourselves along happily or otherwise blindly? Or does your scrum master would say to room of yeas or nays, hmm ... that module seems important - without actually having a clear picture of which are the most strandable modules in relation to a product release.
A product release code-freeze is achieved by progressive freezing of modules. As soon as a module is completed, a product test is done to ensure that the module satisfies its contract and that module is code-frozen to say version 2.1. Even though work progresses on that module for 2.2, the project on the whole should not depend on 2.2 but on 2.1. The strategy is to minimise the number of modules whose contracts needs to thawed when a product release is tested and if the product release should scale down its features. If progressive modular freezing does not help your development team ... either the product is so complex and your management is under-expecting the number of iterations to achieve a proper release or the modular architecture and strategy needs serious rethinking.
I have worked on a project (waterfall) in which we had feature freeze AND code freeze.
Feature freeze means the beginning of a bugfix period. Also new branch was created for the new version so that we could implement features, i.e. this is the point when the company starts to work on the new version. No new features are implemented, only bugs are fixed.
Code freeze comes when QA thinks the product is in releasable condition (i.e. they do not know of any severe bugs). Before a final test cycle a code freeze is announced (remember a test cycle might take a week). If the test succeeds this becomes the released product. If it fails then the new bugs are fixed. These checkins are supervised by architects and managers and the risk of every line is practically documented. Then the testcycle is started again.
Summary: After feature freeze you can only check in bugfixes. After code freeze you can only check in in exceptional cases.
Yeah, it's overthought.
Yeah, it's a misnomer.
If the code isn't broken/messy you wouldn't touch it, and if it is then you will fix it. That's exactly the same situation as if you were not in code freeze. Yes, it's "requirement freeze" or "integration break" which are anti-patterns. It is a point at which to stop including new features in the next release, which is valuable in the sales/marketing/customersupport side of things. But they should probably call it "prerelease".
What ought to happen is that there are always a few releasable versions of the system in version control, and the company picks one to ship.
the Lean name for "code freeze" is "waste."
In your comment, you mentioned the word 'sprint'. That tells me you may be using Scrum(or any other Agile) methodology. In Scrum you hardly 'freeze' anything :) Flexibility, risk identification and mitigation, and above all, in terms of engineering, continuous integration matter a lot in Scrum.
Given this, the team should be cross-functional and the code will be continuously integrated. As a result, you may not have things like 'code freeze'. You just have a releasable product at the end of the sprint. It should have been tested continuously and you should have already got the bug reports which you should have fixed already.
Well, this is theory. However, good scrum teams aren't too far from theory, as scrum is mainly about principles. There aren't too many rules.
I personally won't split too many hairs on the terminology, but the intention behind the term. Most certainly, the term is used to identify a stage in the SDLC, in your organization. Speaking strictly as per Scrum, it doesn't have a bug fix phase. In case you're dedicating one or more sprints to fix bugs, then this term can mean, "no feature backlogs will be included in the sprint, but only bug fixes". This can be easily handled at the sprint planning (and pre-planning) meeting(s) and the team doesn't even have to worry about the terminology. Even better, this terminology/intention doesn't even have to go beyond the Product Owner.
While "Code Freeze" may have a clouded meaning and is, as has been mentioned, more aptly a "Feature Freeze" when considering individual projects/releases it DOES have a place in a larger, integrated deployment where another entity is responsible for packaging and/or deploying multiple software releases from various teams. "Code Freeze" gives them time to make sure the environments are lined up and all packages accounted for. "Code Freeze" also means that nothing but "show stopping" changes are getting in. Everything else would be handled in the next maintenance release.
In a perfect world, scripted testing would have completed before this point and there would have been time allowed for deployment of any last fixes and retest. I have yet to see this happen at any "globo-corp". The (business) testers test up until and even after deployment and the "Code Freeze" becomes a signal to them to step up their efforts and log everything that they've been sitting on. In some cases, it's a signal for them to START testing.
Really, "Code Freeze" is just business speak for "Here there be Tygers". ;-)
when we code freeze, the repo is locked, hopefully all the bugs are fixed that you intended to be fixed, and you the testers to a whole nother round of testing before branching and building to production. if there's any outstanding bugs scheduled for this iteration the leads will be breathing down your neck until it is closed out, or deemed noncritical and pushed back an iteration. so, yes, its really frozen.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been working as a .net developer following the waterfall model. When working on, say a 12 months project, usually my team follows Analysis, Design, Coding and Testing phases. But when it comes to following the Scrum process, I don't really understand how I need to deal with it.
Consider a sprint for 4 weeks and the backlog has 10 items. Let the sprint start now. If developers are working on some backlog items for the first 10 days, I don't know if testing (both SIT and UAT) will require JUST the remaining 10 days to complete the work. And now our sprint does not have any time to do last minute bug fixes and only few bugs could be fixed IN THE PLANNED SPRINT.
And when we do development, how can we make sure that we keep the testing team busy apart from just preparing test cases and waiting for us to deliver the functionality?
This raises a question if we need to deliver the first task/feature within the first 3 days of the sprint, so that testers might be ready with their test cases to test that piece.
I also need to educate my client to help in adapting the Scrum process.
I need some guidelines, references or a case study to make sure that our team follows a proper Scrum process. Any help would be appreciated.
In an ideal Scrum team, testers and developers are part of the team and testing should occur in parallel of the development, the phases are overlapping, not sequential (doing things sequentially inside a Sprint is an anti-pattern known as Scrumerfall). And by the way, contrary to some opinions expressed here, an ultimate Scrum implementation produces DONE DONE stories so testing - including IST, UAT - should be done during the Sprint.
And no, testers don't have to wait for Product Backlog Items (PBI) to be fully implemented to start doing their job, they can start writing acceptance tests scenarii, automate them (e.g. with FitNess), set up test data set, etc (this takes some time, especially if the business is complicated) as soon as the Sprint starts.
Of course, this requires very close collaboration and releasing interfaces or UI skeletons early will facilitate the job of testers but, still, testers don't have to wait for a PBI to be fully implemented. And actually, acceptance tests should be used by developers as DONEness indicator ("I know I'm done when acceptance tests are passing")1.
I'm not saying this is easy, but that's what mature (i.e. Lean) Scrum implementations and mature Scrum teams are doing.
I suggest reading Scrum And XP from the Trenches by Henrik Kniberg, this is very good practical guide.
1 As Mary Poppendieck writes, the job of testers should be to prevent defects (essential), not to find defects (waste).
You definitely don't want to do all development in the first half of the sprint and all testing in the second half. That's just a smaller waterfall.
Your stories and tasks should be broken up into very small, discrete pieces of functionality. (It may take a while to get used to doing this, especially if the software you're working on is a monolithic beast like a previous job of mine that moved to using scrum.) At the beginning of the sprint the testers are developing their tests and the developers are developing their code, and throughout the sprint the tasks and stories are completed and tested. There should be fairly constant interaction between them.
The end of the sprint may feel a bit hectic while you're getting used to the methodology. Developers will feel burdened while they're working on the rest of the code and at the same time being given bugs to fix by the testers. Testers will grow impatient because they see the end of the sprint looming and there's still code that hasn't been tested. There is a learning curve and it will take some getting used to, the business needs to be aware of this.
It's important that the developers and testers really work together to create their estimates, not just add each other's numbers to form a total. The developers need to be aware that they can't plan on coding new features up until the last minute, because that leaves the testers there over the weekend to do their job in a rush, which will end up falling back on the developers to come in and fix stuff, etc.
Some tasks will need to be re-defined along the way. Some stories will fail at the end of the sprint. It's OK, you'll get it in the next sprint. The planning meeting at the start of each sprint is where those stories/tasks will be defined. Remember to be patient with each other and make sure the business is patient with the change in process. It will pay off in the long run, not in the first sprint.
The sprint doesn't end with perfect code; if there are remaining bugs, they can go in the very next sprint, and some of the other items that would have went in the next sprint will need to be taken out. You're not stopping a sprint with something perfect, but ideally, with something stable.
You are (ironically) applying too much rigor to the process. The whole point of an agile process like scrum is that the schedule is dynamic. After your first sprint, you work with the users/testing team to evaluate the progress. At that point, they will either ask you to change details and features that were delivered in the first sprint, or they will ask you to do more work. It's up to them.
It's only eventually, once you have determined the velocity of the team (ie. how many stories one can reasonably accomplish in a sprint) that you can start estimating dates and things for larger projects
First of all, not every Sprint produces a Big Release (if at all). It is entirely acceptable for the first sprints to produce early prototypes / alpha versions, which are not expected to be bug free, but are still capable of demonstrating something to the client. This something may not even be a feature - it can simply be a skeleton UI, just for the user to see how it will look and work like.
Also, developers themselves can (and usually do) write unit tests, so whatever is delivered in a sprint should be in a fairly stable working state. If a new feature is half baked, the team simply should not deliver it. Big features are supposed to be devided into small enough chunks to fit within a single sprint.
A Scrum team is usually cross-functional, which means that the entire team is responsible for building completed pieces of functionality every Sprint. So if the QA testers did not finish the testing, it only means the Scrum team didn’t finish the testing. Scrum counts on everyone to do their part. Whenever any is needed, the people with those skills take the lead, but they all have to do their part.
Try to do continuous integration. The team should get into this habit and integrate continuously. In addition, having automated unit test suite built and executed after every check-in/delivery should provide certain level of confidence in your code base. This practice will ensure the team has code in working and sane condition at all time. Also it will enable integration and system test early in the sprint.
Defining and creating (automated) acceptance tests will keep people with primary QA/testing skills busy and involved right from the sprint start. Make sure this is done in collaboration with Product Owner(s) so everyone is on the same page and involved.
We started our agile project with developers first (a lot of training in Enterprise Framework, etc.) in the first sprint. Then we added QA slowly into the second sprint. At the end of sprint 2, QA started testing. Closing in on the end of sprint 3 QA had picked up the pace and where more or less alongside the developers. From sprint 4 and out, QA is more or less done with testing when the developers have completed the stories. The items that are usually left to test are big elephants that include replication of data between new and legacy system. And it is more a 'ensure data is OK' rather than actual tests.
We're having some issues with our definition of Done. E.g. we have none. We're working on a completely new version of a system, and now that we are closing in on the end of sprint 6, we are getting ready for deployment to production. Sprint 6 is actually something I would call a small waterfall. We have reduced the number of items to implement to ensure that we have enough time to manage potential new issues that come up. We have a code freeze, and developers will basically start on the next sprint and fix issues in the branch of necessary.
Product Owner is on top of the delivery, so I expect no issues in regards to what we deploy.
I can see that Pascal write about mature sprint teams + the definition of Done. And agile always focus on 'delivery immediately after sprint has reached its end'. However - I'm not sure if there are very many teams in the world actually doing this? We're at least not there yet :)
There isn't any testing team in Scrum. Its development team which is cross functional. Scrum discourages specialists in the team so as to avoid dependencies. So the role of tester is somewhat different in Scrum than in Waterfall. Its another debate but for now lets stick to the question at hand.
I would suggest you to slice the stories vertically in as smaller the tasks as you can during how part of the sprint planning meeting. Its recommended to break the tasks to as small units so that they can be completed in a day or two.
Define a DoD at the start of the project and keep on refining it.
Work on one task at a time and limit work in progress.
Work in order of priority and reduce waste in your system.
Do not go for detailed upfront planning and delay your best decisions till the least responsible moment.
Introduce technical competencies like BDD and Automation.
And remember that the quality is the responsibility of the whole team so don't worry about testing being done by a dedicated person.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for process suggestions, and I've seen a few around the site. What I'd love to hear is what you specifically use at your company, or just you and your hobby projects. Any links to other websites talking about these topics is certainly welcome!
Some questions to base an answer off of:
How do users report bugs/feature requests to you? What software do you use to keep track of them?
How do bugs/feature requests get turned into "work"? Do you plan the work? Do you have a schedule?
Do you have specs and follow them? How detailed are they?
Do you have a technical lead? What is their role? Do they do any programming themselves, or just architecture/mentoring?
Do you unit test? How has it helped you? What would you say your coverage is?
Do you code review? When working on a tight deadline, does code readability suffer? Do you plan to go back later and clean it up?
Do you document? How much commenting do you or your company feel comfortable with? (Description of class, each method and inside methods? Or just tricky parts of the code?)
What does your SCM flow look like? Do you use feature branches, tags? What does your "trunk" or "master" look like? Is it where new development happens, or the most stable part of your code base?
For my (small) company:
We design the UI first. This is absolutely critical for our designs, as a complex UI will almost immediately alienate potential buyers. We prototype our designs on paper, then as we decide on specifics for the design, prepare the View and any appropriate Controller code for continuous interactive prototyping of our designs.
As we move towards an acceptable UI, we then write a paper spec for the workflow logic of the application. Paper is cheap, and churning through designs guarantees that you've at least spent a small amount of time thinking about the implementation rather than coding blind.
Our specs are kept in revision control along with our source. If we decide on a change, or want to experiment, we branch the code, and IMMEDIATELY update the spec to detail what we're trying to accomplish with this particular branch. Unit tests for branches are not required; however, they are required for anything we want to incorporate back into trunk. We've found this encourages experiments.
Specs are not holy, nor are they owned by any particular individual. By committing the spec to the democratic environment of source control, we encourage constant experimentation and revision - as long as it is documented so we aren't saying "WTF?" later.
On a recent iPhone game (not yet published), we ended up with almost 500 branches, which later translated into nearly 20 different features, a huge number of concept simplifications ("Tap to Cancel" on the progress bar instead of a separate button), a number of rejected ideas, and 3 new projects. The great thing is each and every idea was documented, so it was easy to visualize how the idea could change the product.
After each major build (anything in trunk gets updated, with unit tests passing), we try to have at least 2 people test out the project. Mostly, we try to find people who have little knowledge of computers, as we've found it's far too easy to design complexity rather than simplicity.
We use DOxygen to generate our documentation. We don't really have auto generation incorporated into our build process yet, but we are working on it.
We do not code review. If the unit test works, and the source doesn't cause problems, it's probably ok - but this is because we are able to rely on the quality of our programmers. This probably would not work in all environments.
Unit testing has been a god-send for our programming practices. Since any new code can not be passed into trunk without appropriate unit tests, we have fairly good coverage with our trunk, and moderate coverage in our branches. However, it is no substitute for user testing - only a tool to aid in getting to that point.
For bug tracking, we use bugzilla. We don't like it, but it works for now. We will probably soon either roll our own solution or migrate to FogBugz. Our goal is to not release software until we reach a 0 known bugs status. Because of this stance, our updates to our existing code packages are usually fairly minimal.
So, basically, our flow usually looks something like this:
Paper UI Spec + Planning » Mental Testing » Step 1
View Code + Unit Tests » User Testing » Step 1 or 2
Paper Controller & Model Spec + Planning » Mental Testing » Step 2 or 3
Model & Controller Code + Unit Tests » User Testing » Step 3 or 4
Branched Idea » Spec » Coding (no unit tests) » Mental Testing » Rejection
Branched Idea » Spec » Coding (no unit tests) » Mental Testing » Acceptance » Unit Tests » Trunk » Step 2 or 4
Known Bugs » Bug Tracker » Bug Repair » Step 2 or 4
Finished Product » Bug Reports » Step 2 or 4
Our process is not perfect by any means, but a perfect process would also imply perfect humans and technology - and THAT's not going to happen anytime soon. The amount of paper we go through in planning is staggering - maybe it's time for us to get a contract with Dunder Mifflin?
I am not sure why this question was down voted. I think it's a great question. It's one thing to google search, and read some random websites which a lot of times are trying to sell you something rather than to be objective. And it's another thing to ask SO crowd which are developers/IT Mangers to share their experiences, and what works or doesn't work for their teams.
Now that this point is out of the way. I am sure a lot of developers will point you towards "Agile" and/or Scrum, keep in mind that these terms are often used very loosely especially Agile. I am probably going to sound very controversial by saying this which is not my intention, but these methodologies are over-hyped, especially Scrum which is more of a product being marketed by Scrum consultants than "real" methodology. Having said that, at the end of a day, you got to use what works the best for you and your team, if it's Agile/Scrum/XP or whatever, go for it. At the same time you need to be flexible about it, don't become religious about any methodology, tool, or technology. If something is not working for you, or you can get more efficient by changing something, go for it.
To be more specific regarding your questions. Here's the basic summary of techniques that have been working for me (a lot of these are common sense):
Organize all the documents, and emails pertaining to a specific project, and make it accessible to others through a central location (I use MS OneNote 2007 and Love it for all my documentation, progess, features, and bug tracking, etc.)
All meetings (which you should try to minimize) should be followed by action items where each item is assigned to a specific person. Any verbal agreement should be put into a written document. All documents added to the project site/repository. (MS OneNote in my case)
Before starting any new development, have a written document of what the system will be capable of doing (and what it wont do). Commit to it, but be flexible to business needs. How detailed the document should be? Detailed enough so that everyone understands what the final system will be capable of.
Schedules are good, but be realistic and honest to yourself and business users. The basic guideline that I use: release quality and usable software that lacks some features, rather than a buggy software with all the features.
Have open lines of communication among your dev. team and between your developers and business groups, but at the end of a day, one person (or a few key people) should be responsible for making key decisions.
Unit test where it makes sense. But DO NOT become obsessive about it. 100% code coverage != no bugs, and software works correctly according to the specs.
Do have code standards, and code reviews. Commit to standards, but if it does not work for some situations allow for flexibility.
Comment your code especially hard to read/understand parts, but don't make it into a novel.
Go back and clean up you code if you already working on that class/method; implementing new feature, working on a bug fix etc. But don't refactor it just for the sake of refactoring, unless you have nothing else to do and you're bored.
And the last and more important item:
Do not become religious about any specific methodology or technology. Borrow the best aspects from each, and find the balance that works for you and your team.
We use Trac as our bug/feature request tracking system
Trac Tickets are reviewed, changed to be workable units and then assigned to a milestone
The trac tickets are our specs, containing mostly very sparse information which has to be talked over during the milestone
No, but our development team consists only of two members
Yes, we test, and yes, TDD has helped us very much. Coverage is at about 70 Percent (Cobertura)
No, we refactor when appropriate (during code changes)
We document only public methods and classes, our maximum line count is 40, so methods are usually so small to be self-describing (if there is such a thing ;-)
svn with trunk, rc and stable branches
trunk - Development of new features, bugfixing of older features
rc - For in house testing, bugfixes are merged down from trunk
stable - only bugfixing merged down from trunk or rc
To give a better answer, my company's policy is to use XP as much as possible and to follow the principles and practices as outlined in the Agile manifesto.
http://agilemanifesto.org/
http://www.extremeprogramming.org/
So this includes things like story cards, test-driven development, pair programming, automated testing, continuous integration, one-click installs and so on. We are not big on documentation, but we realize that we need to produce just enough documentation in order to create working software.
In a nut shell:
create just enough user stories to start development (user stories here are meant to be the beginning of the conversation with business and not completed specs or fully fleshed out use cases, but short bits of business value that can be implemented in less then 1 iteration)
iteratively implement story cards based on what the business prioritizes as the most important
get feedback from the business on what was just implemented (e.g., good, bad, almost, etc)
repeat until business decides that the software is good enough
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
My company is floating the idea of extending our version numbers another notch (e.g. from major.minor.servicepack to major.minor.servicepack.customerfix) to allow for customer specific fixes.
This strikes me as a bad idea on the surface as my experience is the more branching a product does (and I believe the customer fixes are branches of the code base) the more overhead, the more dilution of effort and ultimately the less productive the development group becomes.
I've seen a lot of risk vs productivity discussions but just saying "I think this is a bad idea" isn't quite sufficient. What literature is there about the real costs of becoming too risk averse and adopting a heavy, customer specific, source code branching, development model?
A little clarification. I expect this model would mean the customer has control over what bug fixes go into their own private branch. I think they would rarely upgrade to the general trunk (it may not even exist in this model). I mean why would you if you could control your own private reality bubble?
Can't help with literature, but customer-specific branching is a bad idea. Been there, done that. Debugging the stuff was pure hell, because of course you had to have all those customer-specific versions available to reproduce the error... some time later, the company had to do a complete rewrite of the application because the code base had become utterly unmaintainable. (Moving the customer-specific parts into configuration files so every customer was on the same code line.)
Don't go there.
I agree its generally the overhead to handle customer fixes is high, but I wouldn't say don't do it.
I would say charge the customer an arm and a leg (and them some) if they want that much attention. Otherwise don't do customer branches.
You describe the changes that go into the customer branch as "fixes". Because they are fixes, I am assuming that they will also be made in the trunk and are really just advanced deliveries of future bug fixes. If this is the case, why not just create a new "servicepack" (from question: major.minor.servicepack) and give that version to the customer.
For example, you release version 1.2.3.
Customer #1 needs a fix, create version 1.2.4 and give it to Customer #1.
Customer #2 needs a fix, crate version 1.2.5, give it to Customer #2 and advertise that they also get interim fix "for free".
In my travels I haven't personally seen any definite literature for most of the good practices, although I suspect that there is a lot of stuff out there.
Versions numbers provide a really simple mechanism to tie back specific versions in the wild with specific sets of code changes. Technically, it doesn't matter how many levels are in the version number, so long as the developers are diligent in insuring that for every "unique" version released, there is a "unique" version number.
Logic dictates that to limit support costs (which are huge, often worse then development ones), a reasonable organization would prefer to have the least number of "unique" versions running around in the field. One would be awesome, however there are usually quite a few in the real world. It's a cost vs. convenience issue.
Usually, the first number indicates that this series of releases is not backward compatible. The next number says that it mostly is, but a few things have changed and the last number says some stuff was fixed, but the documents all hold true. Used that way, you don't need a fourth number, even if you've done some specific fixes at the request of a subset of your customers. The choice to become more client-driven shouldn't have any effect on your numbering scheme (and thus it's a bad idea).
Branching based on customer requests is absolute madness. One main trunk is essential, so each time you branch it creates massive technical debt. Branch enough, and you can't afford the interest anymore.
Not sure about the literature but... if there is even a chance that you are supporting customer specific fixes it seems sensible to at least have a branching and versioning strategy in place. Although I would be hoping for the strategy never to be used.
I guess the danger is you end up with a culture where customer specific fixes become acceptible and the norm, rather than addressing the true issue that resulted in the need for the fix.
I guess the real cost will largely be dependent on whether its just an interim bug fix to keep a customer happy prior to the next release or whether its more of a one-off customisation. If it is just the former, and the quantity isn't too high I wouldn't be too woried. However if its customisations i would be scared witless.
If you can find a way to compile your one product and turn on each client's features on/off in their "configuration" of a central build that might be something worth figuring out.
Something like this might best be done through a profile/config/role based setup.
You may have to secure one set of client's customizations from another, or maybe they can all benefit from it. That part is up to you.
This way you can build custom views, custom codes, custom roles, custom code, whatever. But, they're a part of one project.
Do not maintain multiple codebases of the same product at any cost. I did it once and doing an hour change takes at least 1 hour for each system if it's in the worst spot. It's suicide.
Do share what you end up doing!
In my experience, the tipping point is reached when it becomes difficult to explain how bugfixes should be propagated through the branches.
Branching hell is an issue because people lose track of what is in which branch. If propagation rules are too complex, people start making mistakes while propagating changes between branches, and that's how you create branching hell.
If the "Cisco" branch raised a defect and we fix it, should we propagate the fix to the current release of the "IBM" branch, or only to the next release of the "IBM" branch? What if IBM raised the same defect? What if IBM doesn't even use the feature that contains the defect? What if IBM later raises the same defect as high priority? With multiple customer branches propagation rules are never simple, so they pretty much guarantee branching hell.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What do you do when you join a team that says they use Scrum, but only use it as a time-management tool and not the whole process?
How can I reinstate back testing and documentation?
I was thinking to start off with adding user stories specifically for testing and documenting.
Perhaps someone else has more experience with this then I do about this as I am sure its not that uncommon.
The key to scrum is that a task be identifiable as "done" before it can be classed as done. How does you company assess whether something is done without reviewing documentation and tests?
Perhaps they have an unusual, but valid, way of doing it. Or perhaps they have missed the point of "done tasks". I'd suggest you start by asking them how they measure down and whether it could be improved. Then suggest documentation and testing as the way of improving the process.
Note that neither testing nor documentation are in fact part of Scrum. Scrum is a pure project management approach - the required engineering practices, like the ones you mention, are supposed to "emerge" during the project. And most specifically, they are supposed to be identified during the heartbeat retrospectives that you do at the end of every sprint. Are you doing those? Can you bring up your concerns there - and are they actually the biggest concerns the team has?
Is the issue that they don't have any documentation and tests, or that they aren't implementing the entire Scrum methodology? Those are 2 very different problems in my mind.
I would much prefer an organization that has taken the time and effort to find and fit a development process that matches their development style as opposed to mandating down from on high the one true process. So I would not be concerned at all if they were using a process that they called Scrum but that didn't meet all the "official" guidelines. Try to determine why the process is the way it is. Chances are that if they have taken the time to tailor it, the team will be receptive to your ideas, especially if you have taken the time to determine why things are the way they are. If you simply approach it as "this isn't Scrum and so isn't right", you will probably not make much headway, but by being pragmatic about the benefits you can likely make some substantial improvements.
Alternatively, if they aren't doing testing and don't have any documentation I would consider that a fairly bad sign. And by documentation I am taking the minimalist view here - a list of features, bug tracking, etc. - I would be very concerned by the absence of these items, less concerned by the absence of items higher up the abstraction list. In the absence of support from management, I would suggest you lead by example. Take it on yourself to setup a simple bug tracking system (there are several - in a pinch, simple text lists in a central location work as well). Don't declare your features complete until someone else has tested it. This can be as simple as walking over to another developer and asking them to try it in front of you. If someone claims a feature is complete, take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with it. If you find a bug, politely mention it to the responsible developer. Slowly build an environment where the team can see the benefits of running tests and tracking features and bugs.
Most teams operate in this manner simply because of a mistaken belief that they don't have time to "do it right", or that they will get to it later. Often this will occur when a simple proof-of-concept done by a developer or two as a side-project turns into a full-on development effort. By showing that it can actually save time and effort, and reducing the initial costs to the rest of the team, you will often find that it becomes ingrained as part of the process without ever actually being officially endorsed or accepted.
If you have management support it will make it much easier, but always be careful to make sure that the team is receptive to the changes. This may mean it takes longer than you want, but so be it, without the team's support any mandated process will fail at the first sign of pressure, which is when you need the process the most.
*Disclaimer - On my last project I spearheaded the movement to tailor the SCRUM process to fit our environment. The "official" process was simply untenable for our client, but it was still an invaluable guide in tailoring our process.
"adding user stories specifically for testing and documenting"
While meta-user stories might make sense in some circles, it rarely works out well. Software folks rarely cope well with meta-user stories, they either don't get the idea that they can change their own processes by writing a story, or -- more typically -- they engineer the meta-user story to death.
When you're interviewing users, it feels like they're making the user story up. Certainly, you're making it up as you listen to them and try to capture it.
When an IT organization tries to make up its own user stories about how IT should work, the process falls apart. Until the organization has done the thing (testing, for example) a bunch of times manually, they're not really qualified to write user stories. Then, after they've done it, they don't need software development processes, they'll just automate the important bits a little at a time.
I think change has to come from a less formal direction. Actually balking at calling something "done" that hasn't been tested is a good starting point.
IT doesn't do things unless forced. So, meet the users and find out why they're not requiring testing. Coach them to require testing. Tell them the consequences and the words to use.
A lot can go wrong in an organization to lead to poor processes. It's important to know what's wrong, and create a demand for change. The best possible thing is to have your boss complaining that you're not fixing it, rather than you suggesting that perhaps it would be good to fix it.
[It doesn't feel right when your boss demands you fix the process, but it's about the only way change will happen.]
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
In your “enterprise” work environment, how are engineers held accountable for performing code inspections and unit testing? What processes do you follow (formal methodology or custom process) to ensure the quality of your software? Do you or have you tried implementing a developer "signoff" sheet for deliverables?
Thanks in advance!
Update: I forgot to mention we are using Code Collaborator to perform our inspections. The problem is getting people to "get it" and buy into doing them outside of a core group of people. As stalbot pointed out below it is a cultural change but the question becomes, how do you change your culture to promote quality initiatives such as reviews/unit tests?
• Our company uses peer code reviews. We conduct them as Over-The-Shoulder reviews and invite the team’s tester to participate in the meeting to gain a better understanding of the changes. We use Source Control software that requires check-in, code-review rules to be signed off. Nothing big, just another developer's name that has reviewed the code.
• There are definite benefits to code review as several studies have been able to demonstrate. For our company, it was evident that code quality increased as the number of support calls decreased and the number of reported bugs decreased as well. NOTE: Some of the benefits here were the result of implementing Scrum and abandoning Waterfall. More on Scrum below.
• The benefits of code review can be a more stable product, more maintainable code as it applies to structure and coding standards, and it allows developers to focus more on new features rather than “fire-fighting” bugs, and other production issues. There really aren’t any drawbacks if code reviews are conducted “right”. More on the “right way” below.
• Some of the hurdles to overcome while implementing code reviews are the idea that “big brother” is watching me and the idea that not having perfect code means torture and pain. Getting developers to trust each other is difficult sometimes, especially when it involves “pecking order” or the “holier than thou” attitudes and putting your hard work under a microscope. Trust is the key to resolving these issues. A developer must trust that they will not be punished by peers or management for mistakes in code. It happens to everyone. Make a note of the issue, get it resolved and move on.
Scrum
One of the benefits of using the Scrum methodology is that a development cycle (”sprint”) is short. The time-frame of the “sprint” is determined by what works best for your organization and will need some trial and error, but really shouldn’t be longer than four week iterations. The benefit is that it requires the developers communicate daily and communicate problems early on in the project. This was initially adopted by our development department and has spread to all areas of our company as the benefits of scrum are far reaching. For more information, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCRUM or http://www.scrumalliance.org/ . As the development iterations are smaller, the code review process reviews smaller pieces of code, making the review more likely to find problems than hours or days of formal reviews.
“Right Way”
Code Reviews done the “right way” is completely subjective. However, I personally believe that they should be informal, over-the-shoulder reviews. All of the participants in a review should avoid personally attacking the person being reviewed with statements such as “why did you do it that way?” or “what were you thinking?” etc. These types of comments diminish the trust between peers, leading to animosity, hours of arguing over the best/right way to code a solution. Keep in mind that developers do not think or code exactly the same, and there are many solutions to a problem.
Just a little clarification on over-the-shoulder reviews; these can be conducted via remote desktop sharing (pick flavor here), or in person. However, they shouldn’t be limited to the developers only. We typically invite our entire scrum team which consists of two developers per team, a tester, a documentation person, and product owner. All non-developers are there to gain a better understanding of the changes or new functionality being made. They are free to ask questions or provide input, but not to make coding decisions or comments. This has been effective as certain questions will be asked that may change the direction of the project as the initial requirements may have missed a scenario, but that is what agile is all about, change.
Suggestion
I would highly recommend researching scrum and code reviews, before mandating them. Create the basic rules for each and implement them as part of your culture to achieve a better quality product. It must become part of your culture so that it is part of a natural process and integrated at all levels, as it is a paradigm shift from poor quality, missed deadlines and frustration to better quality products, less frustration, and more on-time deliverables.
If you want to ensure that every changelist gets reviewed, before checkin, then you could have your source control tool reject unreviewed checkins. For example, a trigger could reject checkins without "CodeReview: " in the checkin comment. Although people could still lie, they could also be held accountable.
If you want to ensure that every changelist gets reviewed, after checkin, then you could see if Code Collaborator will play nicely with your source control system and automatically make a review task after each checkin (push or pull; whatever works). After that, use whatever "polite annoyance" features Code Collaborator has, to make sure reviews actually get done.
If you want people to review only some checkins, not all checkins, then good luck with that.
We have a pretty cool setup. Coders are expected to test their code before check-ins to ensure that it doesn't break the build and to write tests where they make sense to have but high coverage isn't required.
Complex methods are expected to be commented.
At the end of phases code is reviewed by the whole team.
Pair programming. Work items have a required field of collaborator, the person that you paired with for the work
We lean heavily on ITIL concepts. While we don't need the full scale ITSM that ITIL provides, we have implemented processes that draw from some of the best practices in ITIL, specifically in the areas of Change Management and Release Management.
Code reviews are part of our RM strategy. As a change or new piece of code makes its way through our RM process, a lot of eyes look at it. Ultimately the Release Manager makes the call on approval or rework, and all of this is documented (we use TFS and SharePoint). Formal code reviews are held by the Release Manager and the technical team he selects. The primary developer for a release candidate is held accountable for adherence to standards, functionality, and a verification of a completed test plan. If the quality standards aren't met, the deliverable is rejected and the project schedule is updated to reflect the rework.
Yes, this is all very heavy. I work in government and we have complex laws to follow, specifically in the areas of taxes, ADA compliance, and so on.
We use three basic rules
1) The developer is responsible for fixing bugs in code when unit tests don't exist. In cases where there is a test, the person breaking the test is responsible for fixing it.
2) Code reviews. There are some code review smells that are a good warning sign, over defensiveness and blame redirection being the two most common.
3) NO EMAILING CODE, JARs or config files. Everything is in the scm.
To create the culture 1st try define your standards and values and most of all make them known.
Then hire people who believe in them or who could be able to adapt to them. Don't hire someone who does not have any connection at all with your company values.
Make sure that those who respect these values and show improvements are "rewarded" and "properly" recognized and seen as models. Don't forget that for many is not all about the money.
Don't hesitate to take appropriate measures againts those who do not fulfill their responsibilities but make sure they know them. And have them accountable for their deeds.
Allow people to become used with any new responsibility.
To make change in culture is big deal. Still there are some ways to change.
Create awareness about code review and importance of code review tool. It can be done using training session.
Motivate the people : Giving some reward for the code reviews.
Change in process : Make sure that code review should be happen and properly. It can be done using checklist and part of release process.
Do not try to change completely. Slowly introduce newer changes. Create small group to observe and discuss the change in code review process.
Provide the solution instead of create problem. Process should not be overhead. It comes automatically. Provide solutions to peoples problem related to the process.