As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am using Fogbugz as my Bug tracking software, and was thinking on a schedule so that I can upgrade my Bug tracking software once in a while according to that schedule.
I was just curious on how others are doing their upgrades, and how often.
It would also be nice If you share on what basis you schedule the frequency of your Bug tracking software's upgradation.
Thanks.
I check for the changes implemented in any software and see if the new feature set and/or fixes provide benefit to our development team. In the case of FogBugz, I have not had a single problem caused by the upgrades. Fog Creek has done a remarkable job at testing their product before it hits our system.
I am not saying FogBugz is perfect, but it is close. I cannot say this about every software vendor. I really dislike when software installs screw up the workstations or the server. I use to be a jump on the new release as soon as it ships kinda guy. But too much blood loss being on the bleeding edge these days so I now wait a little bit and see who else has success or failure.
By the way, this is a business decision, not a technical decision. And I make it on a case-by-case basis depending on the reliability of the vendor and the level of importance the software makes to my company.
Rick Schummer
Whenever we need to. If running an older version still works, then thats what we'll do. If a new version has features that would aid development, then we'd upgrade after the next release of our product.
If we were to upgrade just because one became available, the response is usually that the bug tracking software is not as important as fixing the bugs themselves, and that it could wait.
There is no software free of bugs, even the bug tracking softwares.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm starting a new project that will be hosted on Windows Azure.
I'm using RavenDb as the backend and I would like to use CQRS and event sourcing.
I read good reviews of Jonathan's EventStore and it would fit perfectly into my architecture, as it is a thin layer and can use RavenDb as a store.
Now, I've noticed that the 3.0 release (latest official) is a year old and the new 3.1 hasn't been released yet (there is some activity in the branch).
I would like to go for the 3.1 version as it has CommonDomain project integrated, but I don't have any issues with referencing version 3.0 and current CommonDomain separatelly.
I am just wondering if the EventStore is actively developed and will be maintained, especially since Greg Young released his EventStore (geteventstore.com).
I am a bit reluctant to go for it, as it comes with it's own persistance and AFAIK I wouldn't be able to store my events in my RavenDb.
So to sum it up:
Is Jonathan's EventStore live?
If yes, should I go for the current official 3.0 release and reference CommonDomain project separatelly?
Is 3.1 branch (with CommonDomain merged) ready?
Should I switch to Greg Young's EventStore after all?
Or maybe should I investigate Lokad.CQRS? (I don't think it uses Jonathan's EventStore)
PS. I don't mind forking joliver's EventStore and contribute fixes / minor features.
I am using Joliver's EventStore in three systems currently in production and I intend to use it for more projects that will see production soon.
I think one of the reasons that there is less activity in the project compared to other projects out there is that it is very stable as it is. As far as I am concerned the code base is one of the best I have seen in terms of architecture and quality. Most of the activity now is plugins for different types of persistence.
The only thing I needed that wasn't in it when I got started was the possibility to upconvert events so I added that.
And to answer some of your questions.
I think it's live enough. I wont let it die anyway.
Go with the current release and the separate CommonDomain to allow for Nuget management of references.
No, I don't think it is.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Dev-C++ was one of the first IDEs that I got my hand on long ago. To me, Dev-C++ was a small software that can be downloaded and I could quickly do academic assignments with it.
In my college, people have been suggesting Dev-C++ for a quick download and just do the homework, for a few generations now. I recalled I used to have some problems with Dev-C++, mainly not understanding what exactly are mingw, different dependencies, different compilers, and all the complicated stuff.
When I tried to go for bigger projects, I always have the trouble of getting help. Other online helps seem to favor Visual Studio a lot more. For veteran developers who understand compilers and how things go around in software development, this may not be so difficult. But for people who are new to learning programming, is Dev-C++ a reasonable choice? Or should they not use Dev-C++ at all? Will the end justify the mean in the long run?
It's my understanding that Dev-C++ hasn't been supported for a long time and accepts a lot of bad code which it should reject, and it's not recommended simply because it's low quality compared to Visual Studio. Dev-C++ was my first C++ development environment too, and I wouldn't recommend it. VS also has one hell of a debugger, and some strong online reference material, not to mention all the other fun features of having a proper IDE. Visual Studio Express is free for everyone, even the current version, and whilst it's not quite as powerful as the commercial versions, it's still far superior in quality to Dev-C++.
All you have to do is look at the supported versions of Windows. Their latest non-beta version doesn't even list XP as supported.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Which is the best Operation System suited for web application development in various platforms like JAVAEE, PHP, Ruby-On-Rails, Perl, Python, if I have missed out anything then that too etc. including testing front end and business logics, version control system like svn/git etc, planning, reporting, life cycle management etc etc? In short, need to cover all aspects for web application engineering.
I have used both Windows and Linux and have felt Linux is better for its great command line capability. I have no idea about development in Mac. My experience in web application development is limited to 3 years and I just need expert opinion.
Linux is great option because of the following:
Software/Tools availability
Relatively easy troubleshooting
Easy to find answers on any question/error code you get
Great package management (Debian/Ubuntu and derivatives)
Friendly community
and many more
About the machine configuration more RAM, more HDD space, better CPU, ... :). In the company I work, every in-house developed piece of software is developed and hosted on Linux. I really can not remember of any issues we've had, except minor hardware related ones.
Linux is always a best bet on development, but of course you'll want available testing platforms with Windows and Macintosh, as well as other Unix bases for testing to make sure that your product functions appropriately under all configurations.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
I am working on my C programming skills. I decided to run Ubunutu Linux and use code::blocks as my IDE. Now, I need a good source control.
Something that's easy for a beginner to administer (I want to concentrate on coding not managing a server)
Free
Hopefully has a plugin that integrates well with code::blocks
I plan to use source control for my own use. I want to be able to undo my changes if I make too many mistakes. I also want to be able to revert back to an old version and do side-by-side comparisons.
Maybe one day, my buddy and I could work on some code together (from different locations), but this is not a major concern at this time.
What works for me?
You want Mercurial or Git. I personally prefer Mercurial.
Subversion is still very popular and stable. It's centralized though, which these days is considered "the old way." (I've heard people say "Git is to SVN what BitTorrent is to FTP.")
Git is pretty much the in thing right now. In my opinion it has a higher learning curve, but its adoption by the open-source community is widespread.
Mercurial is a great DVCS and, in my opinion, doesn't get enough attention. Great commercial products are built on top of it, though, so growing your project to a commercial system is pretty smooth.
There are others.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
Modern mobile phones have come far since their beginnings over 30 years ago. Especially smartphones, which are essentially miniature PC's, capable of all the same things, if at a bit slower pace. So if cellphones have followed in the footsteps of PCs, why hasn't their software? Why can't I take my mobile phone and install the latest edition of Android on it, like I install the latest edition of Windows or Ubuntu on my PC? Is this solely a marketing decision (market segregation, forcing to buy a new phone if you want a different OS, etc.), or is there some fundamental problem preventing the good old OS+driver model?
Probably because there was no need for it. A cellphone is like a toaster. Nearly nobody want’s to change the firmware of a toaster (except for Cylons). Most people simply want to use it.
Interchangeable firmwares mean additional work for the vendor which can’t be justified if nobody will use this feature.
You can do that, by rooting your phone. In fact, it is possible to put Android onto iPhone (and theoretically possible to do the opposite). It's not more widespread because the phone and software are tied together very tightly, that's why you never have to worry about drivers. For you to change the operating system and perform other tasks that require similar levels of access and modification, it requires manufacturers to update all those specific details, hence it is rare. In the past there have been phones (such as the Omnia) where the manufacturer provides these updates for owners.