At work where we do LOB .NET/MSSQL developement, many projects we have are 2 person or even 1 person projects that have development life cycles of 1-3 months. The developers serve as business analyst/project managers/QA so things get done fast with minimal ‘BS time’ spent. We do get the bigger projects that can take 6 months and have a team of 5 devs on it, but these are more uncommon.
We’re doing a push to initiate everyone doing TDD going forward (my most recent project has full code coverage and was developed solely), and I was doing research on the architecture required to take maximum benefit of it. It seems that most people doing TDD are doing CI, have a build server and are doing automated builds and have some kind of automated client build tool (FinalBuilder or nAnt) etc.
So my questions – I see the obvious benefits on the uncommon large projects where you have 5 people working on the same codebase at once – but will we see much benefit from doing CI on the small 2 man projects? What about on a 1 man project – for those is it just a complete waste since you’re really not ‘integrating’ with anyone? And, how would you pitch CI / automated builds / build server to management?
Having an automated/repeatable build process, and being able to prove that the current build passes all tests and runs in a server environment is worth the effort on any size project IMHO.
I’d pitch it this way: manual builds are manual. Things can get mixed up even on small projects . An automated build solves this problem. The amount of time it takes to set up the build script will be made up many times over during the lifecycle of the application.
As far as CI with test runs etc… goes: It’s a constant health check on the quality of the code base. It’s good to know as soon as possible when one thing inadvertently breaks another thing.