Re: Building BuildStream with BuildStream (dog-fooding)

[Agustín Benito Bethencourt <agustin benito codethink co uk>]

Hi,

On Tuesday, 29 May 2018 23:23:07 CEST Laurence Urhegyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion about dog-fooding with BuildStream. I think
> there are some clear benefits to this:
>
> * Demonstrate confidence in BuildStream.
> * Increase the amount of real world use cases, thus identifying more bugs.
> * Mitigating against the risk of developers working 'in a vacuum', by
> ensuring developers are also users of the tool.
>
> There is a risk that this will prove more difficult than anticipated, and
> potentially serve as a distraction that does not bring as much benefit as
> desired, but I think this risk is quite low, overall.
>
> Anyway, there are people involved in the project who are much more informed
> on the matter than I. So far, having spoken to people informally about
> this, there seems to be a general consensus that this is clearly a good
> idea, but BuildStream is probably not yet ready for it. I welcome all
> thoughts on this. Is anything currently blocking it from happening that you
> know of? I have also opened up a gitlab ticket for this:
>
> https://gitlab.com/BuildStream/buildstream/issues/410

Dogfooding is one of those key practices that has made Open Source what it is 
today. I have written about it a couple of times. The last one I believe it 
was back in 2016: http://toscalix.blogspot.com/2016/05/testing-quality-really.html

In the same line, if we want the tool to be successful in a Cont. Delivery 
context, we should release it following such principles.

This coming release will highlight how important will be to have somebody 
focused on operations once you move from R&D to a pre-productization phase.

 

Best Regards
-- 
Agustín Benito Bethencourt
Principal Consultant
Codethink Ltd
We respect your privacy.   See https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html