Developers like to code, not “waste time” with tools or infrastructure. They are creators and want to create their masterpiece. Check-in, Check-out, Merge, etc. are not ways developers want to spend their time, especially if they are forced to deal with poor performance from an SCM tool, whether it’s by the tool itself, or the myriad of wrappers that were forced on top of the SCM tool their company chose. In a developers eyes, any time spent NOT writing code is wasted time.

However, despite the negative ramifications of SCM centralization and control to the developer’s productivity, there are absolute benefits to the enterprise that cannot be lost. Security, traceability, visibility and control are paramount to running a development organization.

My decision to come work at AccuRev in 2001 was based on the software’s unique ability to provide all the features the enterprise needs, while minimizing the negative impact SCM has on developer productivity. The ease at which AccuRev provides visualization and control over the entire development process was truly a game changer.  And while still a centralized SCM tool, AccuRev was designed to minimize the pain developers felt during their day to day operations.

It’s now 2012 and the SCM landscape has changed dramatically for developers. De-centralized / Distributed development is all the rage now. Version control tools such as Git and Mercurial are providing developers with the experience they demand. Local copies of repositories give unparalleled performance. Strong branching models provide near painless branching and merging. Tools like Git are designed with the developer in mind. Performance, merging strength and extremely in-depth control of all operations are the focus of product features.

All that said, while distributed SCM tools are great for developers and fine for open source development, Enterprises are experiencing chaotic development and losing control in their engineering organizations. So which way do you go? Centralized appeases the Enterprise, De-Centralized appeases the developers.

The answer is both. Now that AccuRev has introduced Kando, Enterprises can maintain all the security, traceability, audit-ability, visibility and process control their business depends on, while giving their developers exactly what they want – to use Git for their day to day development.

AccuRev’s Kando, an enterprise security and compliance platform for Git, which was released in beta in January, complements the open source SCM tool with additional functionality, allowing organizations using Git to simultaneously leverage enterprise-level security and requirements traceability.

Kando is the first software development solution that enables Git development shops to add workflow, issue tracking, security, change requirements and other capabilities to the software development process, all while maintaining the flexibility and familiarity of Git environments.

Kando’s ground-breaking enterprise-level security and compliance capabilities allow its users to:

• Comply with enterprise-level regulations, by providing full audit and traceability
• Secure Git with access control capabilities, and support for enterprise authentication via LDAP and Microsoft Active Directory
• Visualize and manage development processes that use Git in AccuRev’s StreamBrowser™ environment
• Support Software Change and Configuration Management (SCCM) through change-based development with AccuRev Change Packages

“Our Kando Beta announcement in January had an overwhelmingly positive response, and it is clear that Git adoption has expanded well beyond the Linux community, into product development and IT,” said Lorne Cooper, AccuRev’s CEO. “Kando can solve many security and requirements traceability problems that enterprise organizations face when adopting Git, and really allows Git an opportunity to scale the development process across enterprise software development teams.”

During the development of Kando, AccuRev established the Kando Technical Advisory Board, comprised of representatives from several enterprise organizations with Git environments. To hear what they are saying, or to learn more about Kando, visit http://www.accurev.com/kando.

To do this in a traditional Software Configuration Management system, you’ll face two major problems.

1. You have to merge these code changes daily for them to be of any use.
2. You also still need to keep visibility into what stories are shared between teams, because delivering changes from user stories that are not completed in a sprint would be disastrous.

Typically, configuration teams use a single baseline or “trunk” methodology for situations like this, where all changes from each team are delivered to trunk and pulled from trunk as their iterations complete.

In terms of traditional Software Configuration Management, your teams will have to deal with these branching and merging issues. But there are STILL other problems that can happen when you use this trunk methodology:

1. Delivering 2 weeks worth of changes only causes isolation among teams, because teams are working in such a rapidly paced environment.
2. It’s too difficult to pick out each user story from the codebase as it is completed because no tracking is in place.
3. Figuring out the dependencies of those above mentioned user stories is complex.
4. Identifying what changes came from what branch is impossible.

This “baseline pollution” is not scale-able. There are a few ways to alleviate these issues that break the baseline mold. I recommend using a development hierarchy, and manage the relationship of dependencies between branches. This could also include process steps such as integration, quality assurance and code reviews.  A separate code configuration can be used for each step and user stories could simply be drag and dropped between each team, state or branch instead of a merge.

Doing this will increase code stability. As a completed user story is pushed from one stage to the next, the particular change as well as the system as a whole reaches a higher level of maturity. Many traditional SCM tools do not easily support or surface a development hierarchy. AccuRev supports the creation of a hierarchy, gives visibility into the changes at each stage, and enables straightforward merging between stages.

The fact that we often don’t follow a process for the branching and merging of code leads to disarray and pain.  It really shouldn’t be that hard! Teams end up in “merge hell” and deliver changes late to schedule. This problem stems from the way branches are created. They’re often not part of the process and are created from a specific business need, not a from a development practice.

When development teams do create a branching pattern, it’s usually drawn out on a white board or in a Visio document, and is used as a model for the overall development process. While the intention is good, many times these plans become quite complex for reasons that can’t be foreseen.

So, why even create branches, if they’re too complex, and unaccounted for?

Create branches the right way, and use them as:

• Development Branch – A branch created for a development code configurations and builds
• Integration Branch – A special branch for parallel teams to integrate code
• QA Branch – QA branches for QA teams to create builds and environments
• BETA – A preproduction branch for customer sign-off, etc…
• Production – All of the content that ends up in prod

If we take a more philosophical view of what branches represent, beyond business needs, they actually serve as workflows for different aspects of the software development process.

Make Merging Changes Easy and Straight-forward

The funny thing about branching patterns is that we often attempt to create a process, but have a hard time following it. Typically someone from the team will draw the branching pattern on the whiteboard, and even go as far to take a picture of it with a phone to send around to teams.

Unfortunately this process doesn’t scale well when development teams have more than a few people. Change management on the whiteboard isn’t an effective system for ensuring the success of a software release.

Branching patterns should be able to support the development process, and mirror the natural flow of the development team as they work towards a release.

To achieve this, we might want to think of branches as a process management tool, not just a place to put a specific release, patch or development build.  Promotional branching patterns allow for different “states” of code, which is hugely powerful when working through the development cycle. This is a huge topic that is part of larger conversation. To find out more about promotional branching and merging patterns check “A Guide to Branching and Merging Patterns.”

Provide Private Areas for Teams to Check-in and Integrate

Committing early and often is an SCM best practice. Over the years, developers have been told “If it’s not in source control, it never happened.” To avoid this philosophy, teams may require people to check code in everyday so work isn’t lost.

In a practical branching pattern, teams and developers create both private workspaces and branches, allowing them to create builds, releases, and tests of code before they push those changes to other team members. Avoid using mainline type branching patterns that don’t provide code stages; this leads to broken code and unfinished work making its way into a release.

Manage Distributed Teams

Collaborating and sharing code with distributed teams is more complex than ever – teams routinely develop in one location and test or perform other tasks in another location. This distribution of teams strains the development process, yielding security, auditing, and integration problems.

Development teams must appear to be co-located while utilizing the same process with lower complexity. This means code integrations with other projects should happen in real time, so teams can give each other feedback immediately. The branching pattern and process must be followed by everyone, to ensure they are all on the same page.

Understand What has been Delivered

User Stories, bugs, and requirements drive any process, but the ability to see what changes match such items and the location of those code changes are often overlooked in the branching structure.

There is a magical feature that many SCM tools have, called “change-sets” or “Change Packages” in AccuRev. Change Packages associate your changes in the branch with an issue, so you can stay organized and move issues from branch to branch, without having to remember what file went with what issues.

Take these pieces of advice, and they will help if you want to build a release with “finished” issues or if you want traceability into what people are currently working on for a specific release.

Q: Can a developer use Git without an AccuRev workspace?

A: Absolutely. With Kando, the developer does not require an AccuRev workspace. Kando uses a native git repository, so developers can use Git with no modifications – it works seamlessly with AccuRev on the backend. It’s all native Git-to-Git.

Q: Is the Git repository limited to a single AccuRev stream, or can it follow most or all of the AccuRev depot?

A: The Git repository is not limited to a single AccuRev stream, it is completely configurable. When you create a repository, by default, it’s going to ask you to map the master branch in that Git repository to a stream in AccuRev, but you can set up multiple mappings. You could map 100s of branches to streams if you wanted to.

Q: Let’s say I’m an integration manager for a project. Can I create a Git repo using Kando, Git clone it on my system, and let other users clone from me?

A: You can certainly use that model if that’s how you’re most comfortable, where you clone from the bare Git repository associated with AccuRev, and then other people can clone from you. There’s nothing to preclude that from happening because it’s normal Git-to-Git. Another possible solution would be to have all of your developers push and pull from the Kando repository, then you could merge those changes up to the QA or Master branch using AccuRev or Git if you prefer. Kando supports both models.

Q: What about integration with code review tools (like Gerrit).  We actually use Gerrit as the centralized control for our Git repositories

A: If you are connecting Git to anything, whether it be Gerrit, GitHub, an open source library, etc., everything will work. Because Kando is reliant on Git working natively, you can connect to Gerrit or any other tool that integrates with Git. You can push and pull from Gerrit and GitHub as normal. When you push to the remote that is associated with Kando, which is connected with AccuRev, those changes end up in AccuRev in the stream that you’ve mapped to the Git repository’s branches.

Q: How do you handle bugs in Kando itself? Is there support?

A: Kando is an officially supported AccuRev product. If there are defects in Kando, they’ll be handled through our support and services organization the same as they would with AccuRev. Kando is developed using an Agile development methodology, so as we get feedback on defects and enhancement requests, we will turn around fixes and enhancements as quickly as possible.

Still have questions? Ask below, visit www.accurev.com/kando for more information, or check out the Kando video.

As many people know (and as we discussed here last week), Git is increasing in popularity among developers working in small groups or collaborating on open source projects. It’s also fast, flexible, and full of developer-friendly features. But when it comes to using Git in an enterprise, the size and complexity of these environments can make it difficult to secure and manage the software development process.

What makes Kando different from other Git integrations?

Take a look at the diagram below. With Kando, Git developers push and pull from real Git repositories. Kando takes all changes pushed to these repositories and replicates them on the AccuRev server. Furthermore, any changes made in AccuRev streams that are mapped to Git repositories are replicated in their respective repositories. This means Git users can just do a pull to get those changes, which allows Git users to continue using Git as usual without interacting with AccuRev, if they choose not to.

 How does Kando benefit Git development environments? 

Kando enables the flexibility of Git and the security of AccuRev by providing:

• Support for enterprise authentication via LDAP and Microsoft Active Directory
• Fully integrated issue tracking system and Software Change and Configuration Management (SCCM) through change-based development with AccuRev Change Packages
• User and group-based access control security measures
• Visualization of development processes using Git through the AccuRev StreamBrowser
• Seamless integration of Git into an AccuRev environment

Take a look at how it works:

To read more about Kando, watch the demo video, and learn about beta availability, check out the Kando page here!

You might be asking yourself, “Why in the world would a company focused on providing software development tools to enterprise organizations with mission-critical software development environments produce a solution for an open source version control tool?” I’ll tell you!

Git is increasing in popularity among developers working in small groups or collaborating on open source projects. It’s fast, flexible, and full of developer-friendly features. Git is a great tool for these smaller and more social types of development projects, and based on discussions about Git with customers, prospects, and analysts, it’s clear that there are more cases of enterprise organizations trying to use Git.

But poke around a few blogs, or read a few articles that discuss the use of Git in an enterprise environment, and I’m sorry, but you will uncover a few issues. As one article in BCW discussed, “Git is a version control system with an attitude of collaboration and sharing. There is practically no way you can enforce a specific pattern of access and sharing. If the people who’re using Git don’t want to follow your rules, the tool is not going to help you much.” Let’s be realistic – Linus didn’t originally design Git for use in an enterprise environment!

So, in which cases do enterprise organizations actually use Git?

1. Android Development

If you want to make changes to Android, you’re going to need Git. It’s unavoidable. This means any company creating mobile devices running on Android and working with Android source files has a real business need to use Git.

2. Linux Development

Same as with Android, if your company has a need to make changes to the the Linux kernel, you are going to need Git. Even if you don’t use Git when making those changes, you’ll eventually have to get them into Git.

3. Working with 3rd Party Vendors or Outsourced Teams Using Git

Similar to the Android and Linux situation, if you’re working with 3rd party vendors or outsourced teams who require that you merge your changes into their Git repository, you may be forced to use scripts or bridges to get your changes from your SCM into Git or vice versa, and that’s not a small task.

4. All of Your Developers Love Git

Let’s face it – Git has a cult-like following in the development community. Developers love Git because it’s fast, distributed, flexible, fairly easy to learn, and has a ton of developer-friendly features. It’s developed by developers for developers. Even if you understand the issues Git has with scaling in enterprise environments, it’s difficult to avoid Git when lots of your developers are pushing you to switch.

SCM software is not a luxury, nor just another layer of technology to be added to an already complex process. SCM software is a necessity for development teams working concurrently and in parallel on development projects, especially those employing agile processes to deliver higher quality software more rapidly.

Two of the biggest benefits of using SCM software are the ability to coordinate distributed teams and parallel development more effectively, no matter where your team members are located or even the language of the replicas being used – they can be in the next cubicle, the next state, or the next country.

We, of course, recommend AccuRev SCM

No surprise there. After all, we designed it to be fast, flexible, scalable, and effective. After all, we’ve taken process management and version control and made the ideal mash-up that provides the most comprehensive set of SCM tools available, including these best practices:

• Change management
• Visualized SCM patterns
• Automated workflows
• Private developer history
• Multi-stage continuous integration
• Issue-based development

With a single set of comprehensive, best-practices SCM tools to work with, life becomes much easier for your development teams – they can focus on software development instead of management and administration tasks. SCM software made nice and simple.

What makes it even easier is how AccuRev SCM easily handles virtually any combination of development processes, including Agile, XP, and waterfall – you name it. You’re free to mix-and-match because AccuRev SCM’s flexible model enables your teams to rip through development with continuous integration, code refactoring, and automated code sharing, to name a few.

Even parallel development is a cinch with fully-transparent code base relationship management that enables teams to store work safely and test it before sharing it with others. A stream-based architecture makes code branching and merging easier, too – it even allows changes to be automatically inherited from other teams.

If for some reason you’re not already using SCM software or if you’re unhappy with whatever software configuration management tool you’re using now and you want to know more about SCM software and AccuRev SCM in particular, check out our SCM Software Resource Center and AccuRev SCM 5.3.

Yup. It’s true. The tried and true development approach of Waterfall that we’ve been using for years was an example of what NOT to do for software development.

From the Wikipedia article: The first formal description of the waterfall model is often cited as a 1970 article by Winston W. Royce,[3] though Royce did not use the term “waterfall” in this article. Royce presented this model as an example of a flawed, non-working model (Royce 1970). This, in fact, is how the term is generally used in writing about software development—to describe a critical view of a commonly used software practice.

That’s what’s amazing about waterfall, and the agile transformations that seem to be taking the industry by storm. Maybe we all know deep down there is a better way to develop software.

I hope someday we don’t look back on Agile the same way we look back on Waterfall. I don’t think it will happen for the simple reason that Agile doesn’t have one methodology tied to it. Agile can mean a simple set of practices to help with software development, but it’s more like a mission statement as opposed to a plan.