By Matthew Laudato
When I read the following blog, Developing in branches, releasing from trunk about a software configuration management development process that was constrained and tortured by branches, I had an ‘aha’ moment. Actually, I had three moments. They went something like this:
1. Branches are obsolete, so why does anyone still use them?
2. People use them because they are unaware of the alternatives – specifically streams.
3. I must act quickly to save my coding comrades from any further branch related pain.
If there is a cyberspace equivalent of shouting from the rooftops, then this blog post is it. My goal is to help the author to simplify his development process, and to free him and his team from the time-wasting, error-prone, outdated branch-induced hysteria that is clearly evident in his post. OK, so maybe that last sentence was a little hysterical, but you get the point.
In the post (which I encourage you to read first), the author outlines a branch-centric process that goes something like this:
- create issues in JIRA for feature (defect, etc) work
- create a Subversion branch for each JIRA issue, named by the JIRA issue ID (eg, SUP-3452). Developers write code on these feature branches.
- create a JIRA release (for example, R4.2) and target the issues created above to this release
- create a Subversion branch (off of the ‘trunk’) with the same name ‘R4.2′.
- Write a bunch of scripts that look at the JIRA release, find all the issues for that release, look at Subversion for the branches that are named for said issues, merge these branches to the release (R4.2) branch.
- Do some testing on the R4.2 branch
- Tag the release R4.2 branch
- Release software
- Merge the R4.2 tag back into the trunk
Rinse, repeat for the next release.
For some reason, I’m reminded at this point of a character in Tom Robbins’ “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues”. The character had a little business card that he would hand to people. One one side it read, ‘I believe in everything, nothing is sacred’. On the other side it read, ‘I believe in nothing, everything is sacred’. When I think about the author’s process, one side of my brain says ‘there is nothing wrong with this process’, and almost immediately, the other side screams ‘there is everything wrong with this process’. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and it all comes down to branches.
The problem with this process is that branches get in the way. The idea of isolating features in your SCM tool is a good one. Although I don’t personally agree with the idea of dedicating an SCM construct per-feature, there are plenty of people who do. (See Stream-per-task paradigm, for example by Dave Thomas). But that’s not the point. Whether you put one feature or ten in it, a branch constrains your ability to work efficiently. Once you create a branch, it loses all contact with the outside world, most importantly, with its own history and its relationship to other branches. The author even admits jokingly that a ‘release manager’ will likely be needed to handle the merges. Ya think?
Here’s an alternative process that uses AccuRev streams:
- Create issues in JIRA as before for the desired features and fixes and assign to developers. Use AccuBridge for JIRA to sync those issues into AccuRev
- Create a stream for R4.2
- Create (or reparent existing) developer workspaces off of this stream.
- When developers finish coding, they use ‘promote to issue’ to push the code to the R4.2 stream (automatically creating a change package that associates the code changes with the JIRA issue, and automatically updating the JIRA issue with an annotation about said code changes).
At this point, the R4.2 stream contains everything that you want to release. If you decide to back out a feature, you can use the revert by change package feature to remove it from the stream. The code changes are always available in the developer’s workspace if you need to revive them in the future. Once it is time to release, you can create a snapshot of the R4.2 stream to preserve it, and then you can go about working on the next release. If R4.2 and R5.0 (The Next Big Release) are happening in parallel, you could create an R5.0 stream as a child of R4.2, so that the R5.0 stream automatically inherits all of the R4.2 changes.
The advantages are many:
- Fewer and simpler merges
- Right-sized feature isolation and management
- Inherent parallelism through code inheritence
- Fewer process steps
- Built-in automation and thus fewer opportunities for manual errors.
I could go on, but I hear the footsteps in the hallway. There are people out there who don’t want you to know about streams. “We’ve always used branches,” they’ll say. “We’re too smart to use some vendor’s solution,” others will say. I say, don’t listen to them. Fight the power. Walk right up to them and say “Why branch when you can stream?” And then go ahead and watch your team spend less time fighting with branches and merges, and more time writing features and fixes for your customers.
