Over a million lines of code — in existence for over 10 years — gets updates in six-week “sprints” using source control and bug-tracking systems. But now an anonymous reader writes:
In theory users report bugs, the developers “fix” the bugs, the users test and accept the fix, and finally the “fix” gets released to production as part of a larger change-set. In practice, the bug is reported, the developers implement “a fix”, no one else tests it (except for the developer(s) ), and the “fix” gets released with the larger code change set, to production.
We (the developers) don’t want to release “fixes” that users haven’t accepted, but the code changes often include changes at all levels of the stack (database, DOAs, Business Rules, Webservices and multiple front-ends). Multiple code changes could be occurring in the same areas of code by different developers at the same time, making merges of branches very complex and error prone. Many fingers are in the same pie. Our team size, structure and locations prevent having a single gatekeeper for code check-ins… What tools and procedures do you use to prevent un-approved fixes from being deployed to production as part of the larger code change sets?
Fixes are included in a test build for users to test and accept — but what if they never do? Leave your best answers in the comments. How woud you stop un-approved code changes from being deployed?
Read more of this story at Slashdot.