51–60 of 61 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You either maintain a codebase that calls out to the Github API or a codebase that calls out to Git? What's the difference?
Theres a lot of things you can do in the API that you can't do in git. For example, pushes exist in the API, but don't really within git.
`git push`?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You either maintain a codebase that calls out to the Github API or a codebase that calls out to Git? What's the difference?
Theres a lot of things you can do in the API that you can't do in git. For example, pushes exist in the API, but don't really within git.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks interesting. Is it free? It seems like it probably is but I'm not sure. Also when it leaves beta how much will it cost? I don't want to end up depending on something I can't afford.
14 day free trial, then $19 for 1 project, $49 for 10 projects, and $149 to run tests twice as fast. Feedback on anything, including pricing, very welcome.
Encouraging to know this model scales to 100 employees at least. Purely out of intellectual interest, I wonder if a company the size of Google or Facebook could also ship in this way, or if the whole release manager/team is essential.
My impression is that the different scale and technology mix at FB would make it difficult for them to deploy as frequently as github.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/exclusive-a-behind-t... [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3803026
If you're looking for a less complex model of this, you should try our Continuous Integration and deployment service: https://circleci.com . Over time, we'll be providing the sort of complexity that GitHub provides here, now we do about 70% of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sarbanes-Oxley puts a big damper on production deployments at big companies. I don't fully understand it so I won't try to explain it. (I will complain though: the law says developers shouldn't have control over production systems. If that's a requirement, who's going to write the software?)
I don't know if that's a SOX law. However, I do know that it is a PCI requirement. A single person shouldn't be able to introduce new code and then be able to push their own change out to production.
Interesting, I saw something like this by looking at the https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/ project. Take a look at the closed pull requests. They have some bots listening for commands in comments and do stuff like unit testing and previewing. The result gets posted as comment from the responsible bot. Another one is checking master branch for changes and automatically builds and pushes at gh-pages. Seems to work ver…
http://github.com/arturadib/botio
It's written in Node and is trivial to install/use in any Github project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
14 day free trial, then $19 for 1 project, $49 for 10 projects, and $149 to run tests twice as fast. Feedback on anything, including pricing, very welcome.
per... build? day? week? month? year? lifetime?
If you're looking for a less complex model of this, you should try our Continuous Integration and deployment service: https://circleci.com . Over time, we'll be providing the sort of complexity that GitHub provides here, now we do about 70% of it.
Forgive me for not checking it out properly myself as I'm on a phone, but how does this differ from Travis CI? http://travis-ci.org/
- they focus on open source, we focus on web apps.
- you can set Circle up in one click
- Circle is much much faster
- Circle allows you to parallelize your tests across multiple machines
- Circle supports deployment
That is my biased opinion of course.
Both TravisCI and Circle are new technologies in a new market, so I would expect this to change over time, but that's the way it is now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theres a lot of things you can do in the API that you can't do in git. For example, pushes exist in the API, but don't really within git.
> For example, pushes exist in the API, but don't really within git. `git push`?