<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Justifying Continuous Integration Expenditure</title> <atom:link href="http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/</link> <description>Continuous Integration, Delivery and Devops Consulting</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:31:14 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: EJC</title><link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-937</link> <dc:creator>EJC</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:21:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1622#comment-937</guid> <description>Sorry - I want to clarify one point - I don&#039;t think releng needs to be hands on with the set up of the bare machine or patching the OS etc., but I do think they should be autonomous when it comes to managing the software they care about.
Releng (here at least) isn&#039;t versed in byzantine (but necessary) security requirements, they&#039;re versed in codeline management, CI best practices (and the tools to support them), etc.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry &#8211; I want to clarify one point &#8211; I don&#8217;t think releng needs to be hands on with the set up of the bare machine or patching the OS etc., but I do think they should be autonomous when it comes to managing the software they care about.</p><p>Releng (here at least) isn&#8217;t versed in byzantine (but necessary) security requirements, they&#8217;re versed in codeline management, CI best practices (and the tools to support them), etc.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: EJC</title><link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-936</link> <dc:creator>EJC</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:17:59 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1622#comment-936</guid> <description>@Banos - Spot on!
We us Solaris machines racked/stored in the local datacenter.  Releng is NOT hands on with the racking/powering/os patching/etc.  In fact, it&#039;s only recently we&#039;ve been added to the list of users who vet what changes are to be installed as part of any OS patching cycle.
We&#039;re not even allowed to manage our own packages or install them.
So yeah, while it&#039;s cheap to buy the hardware (machine or drive or ram or cpu) upgrades, it&#039;s the squishy costs associated with bringing said upgrade into a build cluster.
As far as dev waiting for CI, originally, one build here took 3+ hours on the build machine and 45 min locally.  I worked with a Sr. dev guy here and we lead a charge to refactor the code and modularize it to death.  Now, fewer things cycle and the build times are as little as 7 minutes for dev locally (and generally shorter) and 10 - 12 min on our build machines (including a rm -rf and a force sync).  Times can creep a bit higher on Mondays we have a hudson job to remove local private repositories, but that doesn&#039;t add much time.
Maybe if you find dev is sitting idle (or find yourself branching libA and appB ALL the time), think about shrinking your codebase into more bite size pieces and refactoring.  That process helped us a TON.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Banos &#8211; Spot on!</p><p>We us Solaris machines racked/stored in the local datacenter.  Releng is NOT hands on with the racking/powering/os patching/etc.  In fact, it&#8217;s only recently we&#8217;ve been added to the list of users who vet what changes are to be installed as part of any OS patching cycle.</p><p>We&#8217;re not even allowed to manage our own packages or install them.</p><p>So yeah, while it&#8217;s cheap to buy the hardware (machine or drive or ram or cpu) upgrades, it&#8217;s the squishy costs associated with bringing said upgrade into a build cluster.</p><p>As far as dev waiting for CI, originally, one build here took 3+ hours on the build machine and 45 min locally.  I worked with a Sr. dev guy here and we lead a charge to refactor the code and modularize it to death.  Now, fewer things cycle and the build times are as little as 7 minutes for dev locally (and generally shorter) and 10 &#8211; 12 min on our build machines (including a rm -rf and a force sync).  Times can creep a bit higher on Mondays we have a hudson job to remove local private repositories, but that doesn&#8217;t add much time.</p><p>Maybe if you find dev is sitting idle (or find yourself branching libA and appB ALL the time), think about shrinking your codebase into more bite size pieces and refactoring.  That process helped us a TON.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Banos</title><link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-934</link> <dc:creator>Banos</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:27:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1622#comment-934</guid> <description>That was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment originally, but it is valid.
There are other problems around agile in the enterprise. Its never just the cost of a server but all hell that comes along with it. The drive to virtualisation and  cloud computing is still in its infancy in many cases and the early efforts may not be well implemented which compounds problems with progress, and hence my comment.
I can feel a bumpy road ahead before we reach the highway...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment originally, but it is valid.</p><p>There are other problems around agile in the enterprise. Its never just the cost of a server but all hell that comes along with it. The drive to virtualisation and  cloud computing is still in its infancy in many cases and the early efforts may not be well implemented which compounds problems with progress, and hence my comment.</p><p>I can feel a bumpy road ahead before we reach the highway&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Adam Leggett</title><link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-932</link> <dc:creator>Adam Leggett</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:33:57 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1622#comment-932</guid> <description>This is why I firmly believe that, in spite of the opinion expressed in this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/23/continuous-integration-in-the-cloud-good-idea/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;previous post&lt;/a&gt;, the cloud presents a great business case for using CI at scale. Using computing resource on-demand, only when you need it, at a $ price per minute, resonates extremely well with those who pay the CI bills. Our approach takes that even further by rolling it all up into a flat monthly fee - and bean counters &lt;i&gt;really&lt;/i&gt; like that type of cost model IMHO.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is why I firmly believe that, in spite of the opinion expressed in this <a
href="http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/23/continuous-integration-in-the-cloud-good-idea/" rel="nofollow">previous post</a>, the cloud presents a great business case for using CI at scale. Using computing resource on-demand, only when you need it, at a $ price per minute, resonates extremely well with those who pay the CI bills. Our approach takes that even further by rolling it all up into a flat monthly fee &#8211; and bean counters <i>really</i> like that type of cost model IMHO.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Douglas Squirrel</title><link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/02/25/justifying-continuous-integration-expenditure/comment-page-1/#comment-927</link> <dc:creator>Douglas Squirrel</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:41:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1622#comment-927</guid> <description>Last autumn we made up a careful case showing all the developer time wasted waiting for builds. Despite tough economic times, our case was convincing enough to get us additional CI kit - not fancy VM servers, but still enough to help us substantially drop the build time. Maybe the Doctor will ask me to do a guest post with more info.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last autumn we made up a careful case showing all the developer time wasted waiting for builds. Despite tough economic times, our case was convincing enough to get us additional CI kit &#8211; not fancy VM servers, but still enough to help us substantially drop the build time. Maybe the Doctor will ask me to do a guest post with more info.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
