Hacker News Reader

Comment by hashkb | Hacker News Reader

I'm on your side but my comment (yours is better) faced opposition so:

They redefine CD and then say nothing else is it, and you aren't doing it.

It seems like many people are unaware that "continuous integration" since its inception has meant pretty much the same thing as "trunk based development."

Wikipedia's definition: "In software engineering, continuous integration (CI) is the practice of merging all developer working copies to a shared mainline several times a day."

That sounds like it allows for feature branches to me.

Edit: anyway, isn't that extremely pedantic? I've known literally hundreds of companies that say "we are using CI" when what they mean is "master is continuously tested + deployed"... is there a name for that we should all start using? I'm not trying to diminish the awesomeness of "real" CD that some of you out there appear to be doing and proud of preserving the term for.

TBD as described here also allows for feature branches (but they must be short lived and owned/worked on by a single developer -- which seems reasonable to me).

I think people are seeing TBD as "no-branches ever" and that is not it's goal or design.

It does, but feature branches become pretty useless at that point. It makes a lot less sense to have a branch for something you plan to merge immediately after the first commit (though my team actually does this just to take advantage of github's PR functionality).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com