Ask Slashdot: How Would You Stop The Deployment Of Unapproved Code Changes?

Over a million lines of code -- in existence for over 10 years -- gets updates in six-week "sprints" using source control and bug-tracking systems. But now an anonymous reader writes: In theory users report bugs, the developers "fix" the bugs, the users test and accept the fix, and finally the "fix" gets released to production as part of a larger change-set. In practice, the bug is reported, the developers implement "a fix", no one else tests it (except for the developer(s) ), and the "fix" gets released with the larger code change set, to production.

We (the developers) don't want to release "fixes" that users haven't accepted, but the code changes often include changes at all levels of the stack (database, DOAs, Business Rules, Webservices and multiple front-ends). Multiple code changes could be occurring in the same areas of code by different developers at the same time, making merges of branches very complex and error prone. Many fingers are in the same pie. Our team size, structure and locations prevent having a single gatekeeper for code check-ins... What tools and procedures do you use to prevent un-approved fixes from being deployed to production as part of the larger code change sets?
Fixes are included in a test build for users to test and accept -- but what if they never do? Leave your best answers in the comments. How woud you stop un-approved code changes from being deployed?

Comments

permissions

[Anonymous Coward]

"How woud you stop un-approved code changes from being deployed?"

Require approval from someone before changes are pushed out.

Re: permissions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an old saying that a doctor who treats himself has fool for a patient and an ass for a physician.

Yet this is precisely the way many IT shops treat testing.

One of the biggest problems with this approach is that the developer "knows" where the weak spots are and test them, insofar as the schedule allows any real testing at all. An independent tester is not as prone to this sort of tunnel vision, especially when the tester isn't looking at code, but instead at the way the code works. Which, is after all, what the code is ultimately for.

A second problem is that characteristics that make a good software tester are not necessarily those of a good software developer. A good tester has to be the sort of meticulous person who can go over items line-by-line over and over again and never take shortcuts. A good developer may be a good developer precisely because he/she can leap around the concepts and tie together seemingly unrelated points.

Then there's the third problem, which is that contrary to whatever non-Euclidean world Management lives in, you cannot dump the jobs of developer and tester on the same person and rationally expect that they can inflate to handle both requirements optimally, Real employees have limits. Not that that matters when "right-sizing" the corporate personnel assets for the next quarter's executive bonuses.