Download as
Browse Code »

Commit c14ebb78ae6fc8344e474d4635532e8b9db27bb2

Authored by Melissa Wen
2 parents a1102aaf 3fa5b4c2
Exists in master and in 3 other branches oss_2018, oss_2018_siqueira, rework_case_study

Merge branch 'master' of http://softwarepublico.gov.br/gitlab/softwarepublico/articles

Showing 1 changed file with 21 additions and 14 deletions   Show diff stats
ieeeSW/releaseEng3/IEEE_ThemeIssue_ReleaseEng_CD.md
  Diff comments   View file @c14ebb7
... ... @@ -196,26 +196,23 @@ We had to handle many tensions between development and political issues. Our CD
196 196 pipeline gave us strong mechanisms to tackle most of the problems. As a result
197 197 we came with some benefits from our decision to adopt CD.
198 198  
199   -[//]: # (TODO - Melhorar título - Ideias: Response to mistrust)
200   -
201   -### Response to tensions
202   -
203   -[//]: # (TODO - Decisão do secretario acima do diretor)
  199 +### Response to mistrust
204 200  
205 201 The direct benefit from the CD pipeline was the fast response to the changes
206 202 required by the government. That was vital for the project’s renewal over the
207 203 years. We could manage the tension between the government and the development
208 204 team better. Every meeting with the government leader was delicate and resulted
209 205 on many new requirements, most of them motivated by political needs. For
210   -example, once it was demanded a completely layout change because one director
211   -suddenly decided to make a marketing campaign about the portal. They would use
212   -undelivered requirements as a means to suggest the project’s cancellation. We
213   -believed that if we took too long to attend their demands, the project would
214   -end. CD helped us to move fast on deploying to production, even of smaller
215   -parts of the requirements. That way, we always had something to show on the
216   -meetings, reducing their eagerness to end the project. For our team, it made
217   -the developers more confident the project would last a little longer and they
218   -would not go looking for another jobs.
  206 +example, once it was demanded a completely layout change because another
  207 +government leader suddenly decided to make a marketing campaign about the new
  208 +SPB portal. They would use undelivered requirements as a means to justify the
  209 +lack of financial resource already planned. We believed that if we took too
  210 +long to attend their demands, the project would end. CD helped us to move fast
  211 +on deploying to production, even of smaller parts of the requirements. That
  212 +way, we always had something to show on the meetings, reducing their eagerness
  213 +to end the project. For our team, it made the developers more confident the
  214 +project would last a little longer and they would not go looking for another
  215 +jobs.
219 216  
220 217 ### Build client’s trust
221 218  
... ... @@ -226,6 +223,16 @@ constantly updated the VE based on their feedback. This made our relation
226 223 strong and in moments that needed quick action they would rather give us access
227 224 to production.
228 225  
  226 +### Shared Responsibility
  227 +
  228 +When the government technicians were responsible for deploying the project, the
  229 +developers lost track of what happened after code was delivered. After adopting
  230 +CD, they felt more responsible for what was getting into production. CD
  231 +influenced developers on taking ownership of the project. In the end of the
  232 +project, we noticed that the entire team was working to improve the CD pipeline
  233 +since they wanted to their new features in production.
  234 +
  235 +
229 236 ## Challenges
230 237  
231 238 We successfully built a functional CD pipeline. In the end, we took over the
... ...