Re: How to move users from SEU (AS400) to Git?

Jon Brisbin wrote:

Today, an RPG programmer can "check out" a source member and SEU won't 
let anyone else check that same member out (and it tells the developer 
who has it locked). The C++ programmers here also use Visual SourceSafe, 
with this same setting turned on. They are open to shifting paradigms 
away from this development methodology (the "I'm working on this source 
file and I don't want anyone else changing it until I'm done") but keep 
in mind that AS400 programmers are NOT cutting-edge and don't keep up 
with the latest development trends. Since we're not going to fire every 
RPG developer we have, we need an upgrade or transition path away from 
the SEU mindset to a more laissez-faire development approach like that 
encouraged by using Git. But one of the first roadblocks is going to be 
this notion that someone else can work on the same file I'm working on 
and that this lack of control invites errors and introduces unnecessary 
complexity.

At $dayjob, we do daily standups at the start of each day. Each developer
speaks for a maximum of two minutes of what they intend to work on that
day. This prevents double-work and usually causes 2-man teams to form
spontaneously when two developers need something changed in either the
same or conflicting ways.

This way, conflicts rarely happen and when they do crop up, developers
don't even have to watch git to find out who wrote the changes that
conflicted with them (although some will learn to do that very quickly).

How do I argue that a more open, Git-based approach to development is 
"better" than the traditional, SEU-based methodology they use today?

Tough one. It might not be, even. If what they do now "just works", I
expect many of them will consider it useless toolchurn just for the hype
of it. Old programmers rarely enjoy that sort of thing.

It 
may be an "old" way of doing things, but SEU works for them and, more 
importantly, they can understand the process. We don't share any of our 
source code outside our organization and no one who would potentially 
work on the source code is farther than a cubicle or two away, so our 
needs in no way extend to what OpenSource projects require, with their 
large and distributed developer base. Using Git seems so open that its 
difficult to explain and even more difficult to defend against 
traditions that are 20 years old and have an entire industry of momentum 
behind them.

Well, lots of communication is easier to achieve in a small team than in a
large one, so try to get the people talking to each other. The only trouble
we have at my workplace is when conflicts crop up. They will do that at
your place too, and when they do it's likely they'll need some help
resolving them. However, communication and the mantra "useless codechurn is
useless" will assist you quite neatly there.

I'm just wondering what the Git experts would say to someone wanting to 
transition from say, Visual SourceSafe, and expecting the predictability 
of having source files "locked out" while a developer is making changes 
to them?

I'd say: Hey, coders. If you want locking, we can write a small tool for
that. To make it a learning process too, that tool will be versioned by
git. We need a small (and stupid) server and a small (and stupid) client.
Locking will be advisory, so you can stick to it if you like, and you get
a nice reason to yell at whoever ignored your lock in case of conflicts.

But that's just me, I guess. I've actually wanted such a tool as a sort
of "I'm working from home on *this* and *this*", but haven't been able
to muster the energy to work on it, especially since most of us where I
work are reasonably comfortable in the face of merge-conflicts.

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231

Register now for Nordic Meet on Nagios, June 3-4 in Stockholm
 http://nordicmeetonnagios.op5.org/

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.