Just kidding, of course. Or am I?
Check out this article sent to me by a colleague. It is full of little gems that I cannot resist to share.
What about this line:
“Even some who are otherwise fans of open source cite the importance of good version control.”
Err… what is that supposed to mean? That many open-source developers do not care much about version control? That would be some news! Or maybe that good version control systems do not exist as open-source? But then, why quote Andy Hunt just one paragraph earlier: “excellent free, widely used, open-source solutions aboundâ€”CVS and SVN come to mind.â€
“Rajiv Delwadia, chief technologist at life-cycle planning and management application company VersionOne in Atlanta, said that most open-source tools are good enough for most teams. â€œBut if youâ€™re going to pay for anything, pay for good source control,â€ he added.”
OK, sensible enough… I guess… but wait for the kicker:
“(Delwadiaâ€™s team uses Microsoftâ€™s Visual SourceSafe.)”
“doing incremental builds for production software (instead sending complete builds through QA on the way to release) is too risky, the company [Electric Cloud] says”
…uh? I guess the reporter got it exactly wrong. As we all now know, incremental builds are the right way of doing releases.
Maybe he really wanted to say that *partial* builds (say, one or 2 dependent components) were risky?
Ah well. I want to be sympathetic. Really. It’s not easy being a journalist when the tech guys you talk to all do not care much that all the information is properly communicated.