100 lines
No EOL
7.4 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
7.4 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "e4553636-3ee0-41fa-85bc-baf37f206424"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-04-21T01:22:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Ship, Show or Ask\n"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2022-11-30T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-04-21T01:22:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2022\/11\/30\/ship-show-or-ask",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>\"Ship \/ Show \/ Ask\" describes itself as a self-described modern branching strategy that combines the features of pull or merge requests with the ability to keep shipping changes.<\/p>\n\n<p>Each change is either a \"Ship\", \"Show\", or \"Ask\".<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"ship\">Ship<\/h2>\n\n<p>\"Ship\" changes are what I most commonly do with continuous integration and trunk-based development projects. Changes are committed directly to the main branch and shipped - assuming that the CI pipeline and any other automated checks pass. There is no blocking code review or pull request for \"Ship\" changes.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"show\">Show<\/h2>\n\n<p>\"Show\" changes are made on a temporary branch instead of the mainline. This branch is then used to create a pull request which is closed once the CI checks pass without any code review.<\/p>\n\n<p>Once the pull request is merged, the change is deployed, but the pull request is still available as somewhere to have feedback and conversation about the change.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is something that I did today after starting to write a new feature by implementing the Decorator design pattern, and wanted others to be aware of this approach and ask any questions.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another reason for this approach is if someone wants to ensure that the CI checks will pass before merging to mainline. Some Developers worry about breaking the CI pipeline with a trunk-based approach and blocking others, so want to know that the pipeline will continue to work and they aren't disrupting other team members.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"ask\">Ask<\/h2>\n\n<p>This is how I've worked on most projects before, and still with some clients where they want to review changes before merging, or maybe I want to have a discussion and review a change beforehand.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is also common when new Developers join a project or need to change some code they haven't worked on before.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n<p>I like the flexibility and balance of this approach. I prefer to work on \"mostly ship\" projects, and most of the show and ask conversations happen during pair or mob programming sessions.<\/p>\n\n<p>Some of my clients where I work with teams are \"mostly ask\" and work in a more Git Flow-type way and want to review any changes before they're merged and deployed.<\/p>\n\n<p>But if you're working on a \"mostly ask\" project and want to move to \"mostly ship\", then aiming to move to \"mostly show\" is a good intermediate step and a way to reduce shipping time or develop and build confidence in the CI pipeline before moving to trunk-based development and removing the manual review step.<\/p>\n\n<p>The full article with more information is at https:\/\/martinfowler.com\/articles\/ship-show-ask.html.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>\"Ship \/ Show \/ Ask\" describes itself as a self-described modern branching strategy that combines the features of pull or merge requests with the ability to keep shipping changes.<\/p>\n\n<p>Each change is either a \"Ship\", \"Show\", or \"Ask\".<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"ship\">Ship<\/h2>\n\n<p>\"Ship\" changes are what I most commonly do with continuous integration and trunk-based development projects. Changes are committed directly to the main branch and shipped - assuming that the CI pipeline and any other automated checks pass. There is no blocking code review or pull request for \"Ship\" changes.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"show\">Show<\/h2>\n\n<p>\"Show\" changes are made on a temporary branch instead of the mainline. This branch is then used to create a pull request which is closed once the CI checks pass without any code review.<\/p>\n\n<p>Once the pull request is merged, the change is deployed, but the pull request is still available as somewhere to have feedback and conversation about the change.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is something that I did today after starting to write a new feature by implementing the Decorator design pattern, and wanted others to be aware of this approach and ask any questions.<\/p>\n\n<p>Another reason for this approach is if someone wants to ensure that the CI checks will pass before merging to mainline. Some Developers worry about breaking the CI pipeline with a trunk-based approach and blocking others, so want to know that the pipeline will continue to work and they aren't disrupting other team members.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"ask\">Ask<\/h2>\n\n<p>This is how I've worked on most projects before, and still with some clients where they want to review changes before merging, or maybe I want to have a discussion and review a change beforehand.<\/p>\n\n<p>This is also common when new Developers join a project or need to change some code they haven't worked on before.<\/p>\n\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n<p>I like the flexibility and balance of this approach. I prefer to work on \"mostly ship\" projects, and most of the show and ask conversations happen during pair or mob programming sessions.<\/p>\n\n<p>Some of my clients where I work with teams are \"mostly ask\" and work in a more Git Flow-type way and want to review any changes before they're merged and deployed.<\/p>\n\n<p>But if you're working on a \"mostly ask\" project and want to move to \"mostly ship\", then aiming to move to \"mostly show\" is a good intermediate step and a way to reduce shipping time or develop and build confidence in the CI pipeline before moving to trunk-based development and removing the manual review step.<\/p>\n\n<p>The full article with more information is at https:\/\/martinfowler.com\/articles\/ship-show-ask.html.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "2025-04-21T01:22:00+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "3cbb18db43461716704cf4d74f02adff",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |