Debian should not have adopted it for at least a few more years; they’re supposed to be the slow, steady, and stable distro. Their quick move to systemd hurt a lot of feelings and caused half their team to leave for Devuan. That shouldn’t happen. If your team is that fiercely split on an issue, the correct response it to leave the status quo alone until cooler heads prevail. Debian lost a lot of their reputation for stability because of this.

StyrelseAkademien är en ideell förening som verkar för ett bättre styrelsearbete i svenska företag. Vår mission är att öka kunskapen om styrelsearbetets betydelse för lönsamhet och utvecklingskraft. Vi arbetar med utbildning, nätverk, rekrytering och opinionsbildning.

StyrelseAkademien Sverige har arton medlemsföreningar med över 6 000 individuella medlemmar. Vi utbildar ca 2 000 personer om året i styrelse- och ägarfrågor.

ADKAR is a research-based, individual change model that represents the five milestones an individual must achieve in order to change successfully. ADKAR creates a powerful internal language for change and gives leaders a framework for helping people embrace and adopt changes.

The Collective Code Construction Contract (C4) is an evolution of the github.com Fork + Pull Model, aimed at providing an optimal collaboration model for free software projects. This is revision 1 of the C4 specification.

Ashish Kumar presents how Google manages to keep the source code of all its projects, over 2000, in a single code trunk containing hundreds of millions of code lines, with more than 5,000 developers accessing the same repository.

So, why don’t we use git-flow at GitHub? Well, the main issue is that we deploy all the time. The git-flow process is designed largely around the “release”. We don’t really have “releases” because we deploy to production every day - often several times a day. We can do so through our chat room robot, which is the same place our CI results are displayed. We try to make the process of testing and shipping as simple as possible so that every employee feels comfortable doing it.

There are a number of advantages to deploying so regularly. If you deploy every few hours, it’s almost impossible to introduce large numbers of big bugs. Little issues can be introduced, but then they can be fixed and redeployed very quickly. Normally you would have to do a ‘hotfix’ or something outside of the normal process, but it’s simply part of our normal process - there is no difference in the GitHub flow between a hotfix and a very small feature.

With every year that passed, as Perl 6 produced more press releases than actual code, the attractiveness of Perl as a platform declined. Sure, it still had users. Sure, it still had people starting new projects. (The Modern Perl movement was a decent attempt to bring wider enthusiasm back into the ecosystem by dispelling some of the worst myths of the language. It modeled itself after JavaScript: The Good Parts without realizing that Perl lacked JavaScript's insurmountable advantage of ubiquity. Who could have predicted that Objective-C would be interesting again a year before the iPhone came out?)

What it didn't have was a clearly defined future, let alone an articulated one.

Here’s the scene: A problem has come up with one of your supply chain vendors, threatening to delay timely shipment of your product. At the same time, a potential opportunity appears that, with some exploration and investment, could lead to a new generation of products down the road. Which do you respond to first?

An informed guide to misconceptions of Agile.

I recently came across a rather misinformed document called the Anti-Agile Manifesto. Normally, I just ignore this sort of thing, but in this case, people I know who are in the exploratory phase of agile adoption were treating the document seriously. Because the thinking in this document, which is not uncommon, undermines the success of fledgling agile shops, it seemed worth discussing it.

|< First   < Previous   11–20 (70)   Next >   Last >|