Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Programming Python

Ask Slashdot: Taming a Wild, One-Man Codebase? 151

New submitter tavi.g writes "Working for an ISP, along with my main job (networking) I get to create some useful code (Bash and Python) that's running on various internal machines. Among them: glue scripts, Cisco interaction / automatization tools, backup tools, alerting tools, IP-to-Serial OOB stuff, even a couple of web applications (LAMPython and CherryPy). Code has piled up — maybe over 20,000 lines — and I need a way to reliably work on it and deploy it. So far I used headers at the beginning of the scripts, but now I'm migrating the code over to Bazaar with TracBzr, because it seems best for my situation. My question for the Slashdot community is: in the case of single developer (for now), multiple machines, and a small-ish user base, what would be your suggestions for code versioning and deployment, considering that there are no real test environments and most code just goes into production ? This is relevant because lacking a test environment, I got used to immediate feedback from the scripts, since they were in production, and now a versioning system would mean going through proper deployment/rollback in order to get real feedback."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Taming a Wild, One-Man Codebase?

Comments Filter:
  • first thought: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tastecicles ( 1153671 ) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @02:31PM (#41402669)

    rectify the testbed lack.

    'cos there's nothing more likely to cause immediate termination of your employment than a bit of rogue code taking down the bread of the business.

    Test it first.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, 2012 @02:46PM (#41402903)

    Most of you whom have seen this may have read it in the Jargon File. It's relevant. The short answer is "you don't":

    The Story of Mel, a Real Programmer

    This was posted to USENET by its author, Ed Nather (utastro!nather), on May 21, 1983.

    A recent article devoted to the *macho* side of programming made the bald and unvarnished statement:

    Real Programmers write in FORTRAN.

    Maybe they do now,
    in this decadent era of
    Lite beer, hand calculators, and "user-friendly" software
    but back in the Good Old Days,
    when the term "software" sounded funny
    and Real Computers were made out of drums and vacuum tubes,
    Real Programmers wrote in machine code.
    Not FORTRAN. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language.
    Machine Code.
    Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers.
    Directly.

    Lest a whole new generation of programmers
    grow up in ignorance of this glorious past,
    I feel duty-bound to describe,
    as best I can through the generation gap,
    how a Real Programmer wrote code.
    I'll call him Mel,
    because that was his name.

    I first met Mel when I went to work for Royal McBee Computer Corp.,
    a now-defunct subsidiary of the typewriter company.
    The firm manufactured the LGP-30,
    a small, cheap (by the standards of the day)
    drum-memory computer,
    and had just started to manufacture
    the RPC-4000, a much-improved,
    bigger, better, faster --- drum-memory computer.
    Cores cost too much,
    and weren't here to stay, anyway.
    (That's why you haven't heard of the company,
    or the computer.)

    I had been hired to write a FORTRAN compiler
    for this new marvel and Mel was my guide to its wonders.
    Mel didn't approve of compilers.

    "If a program can't rewrite its own code",
    he asked, "what good is it?"

    Mel had written,
    in hexadecimal,
    the most popular computer program the company owned.
    It ran on the LGP-30
    and played blackjack with potential customers
    at computer shows.
    Its effect was always dramatic.
    The LGP-30 booth was packed at every show,
    and the IBM salesmen stood around
    talking to each other.
    Whether or not this actually sold computers
    was a question we never discussed.

    Mel's job was to re-write

  • Re:first thought: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, 2012 @02:55PM (#41403011)

    Yes, by all means test. Then, deploy your tests into production by mistake, like on Wall Street or something, LOL. Seriously though, testing is good and I unit test right from the start; but there are no silver bullets.

  • Re:first thought: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ILongForDarkness ( 1134931 ) on Thursday September 20, 2012 @02:57PM (#41403053)

    rectify the testbed lack, like Yoda is it. I agree you need a testbed. Heck run a few vm's on a workstation. If you can't build a vm to test something it shouldn't be deployed IMHO.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...