|
I have been writing a very small introduction to the CITCON in this post
The conference is now finished and so it's time to speak a bit about it !
This edition was full of surprises for me. First because it's the first time I was going to CITCON (pronounce it "KIT-KON") and the first time I was participating in Open Space discussion. The principle ? Simple. No conference, nothing really planned in advance.
On friday evening, after every one (between 60 and 100 persons) has presented themselves in a few words, some people started to explain the subjects they would like to discuss about. All could propose a subject and all could vote for their favorite subject in order to plan after how the different talks will occur on the next day and in which room. Interesting concept. In the end CITCON is really an excahnge of point of views, good and bad experiences, between people that all have the same goals : learning and sharing.
|
|
But let's come back to the discussions I have participated into.
-
At 10h00 : Discussions about the "Build pipeline" with maybe 30 participants, or how, why and which difficulties shall we encounter, to provide an automated build from development to automated test platform, QA platform and production platform. We have been discussing how recent is the technology, and so how "immature" or "not yet ready" are people from Operations. I specially liked the discussion and point of view of Xavier Quesada Allue about database update.
-
At 11h15, Jeffrey Fredrick (one of the organizer of the CITCON) has presented Crap4J, a new utility used for Java to determine where "crap is". By "crap", you should hear "risk", as this acronym means "Change Risk Analysis Prediction". How it works ? Putting in common the cyclomatic complexity and the code coverage to see the most potential risk in code.
-
At 14h00, Alexander Snaps had organized a small talk about "Code Reviews and Delayed Commits". This discussion involved a few people only among Dario Garcia Coder, Andrew Binstock, Patrick Smith and myself. It was for me, without any comparison, the most interesting discussion (maybe also because it was with much less people) with some opposite point of views. Shall we - or not - make code reviews before commits? If yes, on wich criteria shall we do them? Is it possible to ask the developpers to commit anyway (in a separate repository ?) and ask a code review later on ?
-
At 15h15, Douglas Squirrel wanted to share with us its idea of creating a new software : "Karma for Continuous Integration". Its goal ? Attributing (or removing) "Karma points" to developpers based on the commit he has just done (has he incresed te code coverage, decrease the complexity, ...). He wanted during this session to explain its idea and see what would be the people expectations about such an idea
-
And finally at 16h30, Bernard Vander Beken and Alexander Snaps wanted to speak about the Web UI Testing problematic. In the end we have spoken about some tools, possible limitations, how to test Ajax based application, should we go until "mocking up" the server itself ? Interesting talk wth the expertise of the google guys showing of what they have done.
What can I say more ? Well I just hope to continue the discussions with some of you guys and to be present in the next year session !
I will probably update soon this post to add some link to other interesting people I have met there !
|