<?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 for The Build Doctor</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.build-doctor.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.build-doctor.com</link>
	<description>Helping to deliver working software, one continuous integration build at a time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:02:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Links for 2010-03-12 by builddoctor</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/12/links-for-2010-03-12/comment-page-1/#comment-996</link>
		<dc:creator>builddoctor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/12/links-for-2010-03-12/#comment-996</guid>
		<description>This is a test comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a test comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DevOps is a good cause, but what about OpsOps? by Before DevOps, Don&#8217;t You Need OpsOps? &#124; Web Admin Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/09/devops-is-a-good-cause-but-what-about-opsops/comment-page-1/#comment-995</link>
		<dc:creator>Before DevOps, Don&#8217;t You Need OpsOps? &#124; Web Admin Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:58:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1646#comment-995</guid>
		<description>[...] DevOps is a good cause, but what about OpsOps? by the Build Doctor [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] DevOps is a good cause, but what about OpsOps? by the Build Doctor [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DevOps is a good cause, but what about OpsOps? by Ernest Mueller</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/09/devops-is-a-good-cause-but-what-about-opsops/comment-page-1/#comment-994</link>
		<dc:creator>Ernest Mueller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1646#comment-994</guid>
		<description>Preach it brother. 

Frankly as a Web ops person I&#039;ve had a lot more luck getting developers to want to collaborate than our other Infrastructure teams.  Heck, recently I got the Infrastructure director to agree that we need an email list with all the various teams on it that people need to send change notices to so that everyone knows what&#039;s going on in the environment - and most of the teams refuse to do it.  &quot;Why should I need to tell anyone what I&#039;m doing?  Why do you need to know?  And I might hear about changes I don&#039;t care about!  Never!&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Preach it brother. </p>
<p>Frankly as a Web ops person I&#8217;ve had a lot more luck getting developers to want to collaborate than our other Infrastructure teams.  Heck, recently I got the Infrastructure director to agree that we need an email list with all the various teams on it that people need to send change notices to so that everyone knows what&#8217;s going on in the environment &#8211; and most of the teams refuse to do it.  &#8220;Why should I need to tell anyone what I&#8217;m doing?  Why do you need to know?  And I might hear about changes I don&#8217;t care about!  Never!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Build Pattern: Facade by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/02/build-pattern-facade/comment-page-1/#comment-992</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1635#comment-992</guid>
		<description>@mike - good call on writing your own plugins - I think that&#039;s the way to make simple Ant or Maven tools, with less XML.

@ej - glad you got outta town okay!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@mike &#8211; good call on writing your own plugins &#8211; I think that&#8217;s the way to make simple Ant or Maven tools, with less XML.</p>
<p>@ej &#8211; glad you got outta town okay!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on DevOps is a good cause, but what about OpsOps? by Everything is a Freaking DNS problem</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/09/devops-is-a-good-cause-but-what-about-opsops/comment-page-1/#comment-985</link>
		<dc:creator>Everything is a Freaking DNS problem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1646#comment-985</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;DevOPS, SecOPS, DBAOps, NetOps...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post is long overdue,  as the idea  struck me when dicussing with  Lefred  while preparing his Fosdem talk on Maintaining too big tables

I got triggered finishing this post by Mr BuidlDoctor

Fred has been struggling with a typical DevOps problem...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>DevOPS, SecOPS, DBAOps, NetOps&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post is long overdue,  as the idea  struck me when dicussing with  Lefred  while preparing his Fosdem talk on Maintaining too big tables</p>
<p>I got triggered finishing this post by Mr BuidlDoctor</p>
<p>Fred has been struggling with a typical DevOps problem&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Build Pattern: Facade by EJC</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/02/build-pattern-facade/comment-page-1/#comment-964</link>
		<dc:creator>EJC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:27:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1635#comment-964</guid>
		<description>I agree whole heartedly with the maven-calls-ant bit (and vice versa).

We went whole hog and faced pitchforks and torches (I&#039;ll admit to carrying some of them as well).

In hindsight, adopting a smoother transition would have been better.  I look at things like this now with an eye toward evolution, NOT revolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree whole heartedly with the maven-calls-ant bit (and vice versa).</p>
<p>We went whole hog and faced pitchforks and torches (I&#8217;ll admit to carrying some of them as well).</p>
<p>In hindsight, adopting a smoother transition would have been better.  I look at things like this now with an eye toward evolution, NOT revolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Build Pattern: Facade by MikeNereson</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2010/03/02/build-pattern-facade/comment-page-1/#comment-962</link>
		<dc:creator>MikeNereson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=1635#comment-962</guid>
		<description>The first thing that came to mind to me was something that you pointed out -- using the Maven Ant Plugin to call ant tasks from a maven build. Another option for maven users to to write your own plugin to extend build process steps or create new ones.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first thing that came to mind to me was something that you pointed out &#8212; using the Maven Ant Plugin to call ant tasks from a maven build. Another option for maven users to to write your own plugin to extend build process steps or create new ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Every Continuous Integration server that supports Ruby + Git by Slava Imeshev</title>
		<link>http://www.build-doctor.com/2009/04/08/every-continuous-integration-server-that-supports-ruby-git/comment-page-1/#comment-955</link>
		<dc:creator>Slava Imeshev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.build-doctor.com/?p=563#comment-955</guid>
		<description>Hi Julian, 

You might want to add our Parabuild to your list. Parabuild now provides &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.viewtier.com/products/parabuild/git_continuous_integration_release_management.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Continuous Integration for Git&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Julian, </p>
<p>You might want to add our Parabuild to your list. Parabuild now provides <a href="http://www.viewtier.com/products/parabuild/git_continuous_integration_release_management.htm" rel="nofollow">Continuous Integration for Git</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Justifying Continuous Integration Expenditure 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>Comment on Justifying Continuous Integration Expenditure 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>
</channel>
</rss>
