[p2pu-dev] Suggestion for developemnt process
wesleymarkpennock at gmail.com
Wed May 11 19:13:31 UTC 2011
This may or may not relate to the topic at hand but what IDEs do you guys
use to edit the code for P2PU? I am currently between IDEs and was wondering
if there is a standard among the dev group.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:54 PM, zuzel.vp <zuzel.vp at gmail.com> wrote:
> We just have django tests -->
> At this point i think a CI server is an overkill but in the future
> when the project grows it will be nice to have it.
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Nadeem Shabir <ns at talis.com> wrote:
> > Zuzel what level of automated testing do we have at the moment?
> > I'm a little out of sync with our current development process ... but ...
> > Should the development process not be tied into / supported by a
> > integration process? I.e. every check in into trunk is checked out by a
> > server that builds, deploys, and runs any automated tests. Should we be
> > aiming to have a suite of unit tests, and a suite of acceptance or more
> > functional tests written in something like Selenium that verifies that
> > application is working consistently across different browsers. I've been
> > using tools like SauceLabs to run a Selenium based test suite against
> > multiple browser and os versions - and the net result is all developer
> > checkins are tested automatically by the build server, which obviously
> > releases can then be deployed to live with confidence.
> > On 11 May 2011 10:15, Philipp Schmidt <phi.schmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11 May 2011 03:49, John Britton <public at johndbritton.com> wrote:
> >> > This is part of the argument against moving to the new site earlier.
> >> > not
> >> > opposed, but because we're going to have more and more real users on
> >> > new
> >> > site we'll have to spend a fair amount of time making sure things work
> >> > before we push them. The alternative is to be ready to fix things if
> >> > they
> >> > are broken after we push them (I tend to prefer this approach).
> >> I suspect the right solution is somewhere in the middle. The old site
> >> is really starting to hurt us, and it would be great if we could move
> >> sooner rather than later. But I agree with John that we don't want to
> >> slow down development too much, and we also don't want real users to
> >> get frustrated by serious bugs. Could we keep pushing (push-then-fix)
> >> for now, and start increasing the testing / staging phase by a day at
> >> a time as we take on more users?
> >> It might also be useful to have an alpha.p2pu.org where those with
> >> interest and time, could always access the latest snapshot of
> >> development progress, and help test.
> >> P
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> p2pu-dev mailing list
> >> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
> >> http://lists.p2pu.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pu-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > p2pu-dev mailing list
> > p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
> > http://lists.p2pu.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pu-dev
> p2pu-dev mailing list
> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
Check Out The Techie School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2pu-dev