I've spent the past three weeks trying to cherry-pick changes out of one branch into another. When do I just give up and merge?
In the Pits
I once rode home with a friend from a computer conference in Monterey. It just so happened that this friend is a huge fan of fresh cherries, and when he saw a small stand selling baskets of them he stopped to buy some. Another trait this friend possesses is that he can't ever pass up a good deal. So while haggling with the cherry seller, it became obvious that buying a whole flat of cherries would be a better deal than buying a single basket, even though that was all we really wanted. Not wanting to pass up a deal, however, my friend bought the entire flat and off we went—eating and talking. It took another 45 minutes to get home, and during that time we had eaten more than half the flat of cherries. I couldn't look at anything even remotely cherry-flavored for months; and today, when someone says "cherry-picking," that doesn't conjure up happy images of privileged kids playing farmer on Saturday mornings along the California coast—I just feel ill.
All of which brings me to your letter. It's always hard to say when someone else should "just give up and do X," no matter what X is, but at some point you know—deep down, somewhere in that place that makes you an engineer—what started out as a quick bit of cherry-picking has turned into a horrific slog through the mud, and nothing short of a John Deere tractor is going to get you out of it. The happy moments in the sunshine have ended, it's raining, you're cold, and you just want to go home. That's the time to stop and try again.
I know this probably ought to go without saying, but the real reason most of us wind up in the pits of cherry-picking is because we have not been doing the real work of periodically merging whatever code we're working against. We've let the head of the tree, or the tip of the git, or whatever stupid phrase people might want to use, get away from us, and the longer we wait to do the merge, the more pain we're going to suffer. The best way to keep from being stuck in the cherry orchard is to have a merged and tested branch ready to go when it's time for your project to resynchronize with the head of the development tree. I know this is more work than isolating yourself in a corner and just working on the next release, but in the end it will save you a lot of headaches. The question next time won't be, "When do I stop cherry-picking?" but simply, "When is the new branch ready to receive the work we've already done?"
I just started working for a new project lead who has an extremely annoying habit. Whenever I fix a bug and check in the fix to our code repo, she asks, "How do you know this is fixed?" or something like that, questioning every change I make to the system. It's as if she doesn't trust me to do my job. I always update our tests when I fix a bug, and that should be enough, don't you think? What does she want, a formal proof of correctness?
I Know Because I Know
Dear I Know,
Working on software is more than just knowing in your gut that the code is correct. In actuality, no part of working on software should be based on gut feelings, because, after all, software is supposed be a part of computer science, and science demands proof.
One of the problems I have with the current crop of bug-tracking systems—and trust me, this is only one of the problems I have with them—is that they don't do a good job of tracking the work you've done to fix a bug. Most bug trackers have many states a bug can go through: new, open, analyzed, fixed, resolved, closed, etc., but that's only part of the story of fixing a bug, or doing anything else with a program of any size.
A program is an expression of some sort of system that you, or a team, are implementing by writing it down as code. Because it's a system, you have to have some way of reasoning about that system. Many people will now leap up and yell, "Type Systems!" "Proofs!" and other things about which most working programmers have no idea and which they are not likely ever to come into contact with. There is, however, a simpler way of approaching this problem that does not depend on a fancy or esoteric programming language: use the scientific method.
When you approach a problem, you ought to do it in a way that mirrors the scientific method. You probably have an idea of what the problem is. Write that down as your theory. A theory explains some observable facts about the system. Based on your theory, you develop one or more hypotheses about the problem. A hypothesis is a testable idea for solving the problem. The nice thing about a hypothesis is that it is either true or false, which works well with our Boolean programmer brains: either/or, black or white, true or false, no "fifty shades of grey."
The key here is to write all of this down. When I was young I never wrote things down because I thought I could keep them all in my head. But that was nonsense; I couldn't keep them all in my head, and I didn't know the ones I'd forgotten until my boss at the time asked me a question I couldn't answer. Few things suck as much as knowing that you've got a dumb look on your face in response to a question about something you're working on.
Eventually I developed a system of note taking that allowed me to make this a bit easier. When I have a theory about a problem, I create a note titled THEORY, and write down my idea. Under this, I write up all my tests (which I call TEST because, like any good programmer, I don't want to keep typing HYPOTHESIS). The note-taking system I currently use is Org mode in Emacs, which lets you create sequences that can be tied to hot keys, allowing you to change labels quickly. For bugs, I have labels called BUG, ANALYZED, PATCHED, |, and FIXED, while for hypotheses I have either PROVEN or DISPROVEN.
I always keep both the proven and disproven hypotheses. Why do I keep both? Because that way I know what I tried, and what worked and what failed. This proves to be invaluable when you have a boss with OCD, or, as they like to be called, "detail oriented." By keeping both your successes and failures, you can always go back, say in three months when the code breaks in a disturbingly similar way to the bug you closed, and look at what you tested last time. Maybe one of those hypotheses will prove to be useful, or maybe they'll just remind you of the dumb things you tried, so you don't waste time trying them again. Whatever the case, you should store them, backed up, in some version-controlled way. Mine are in my personal source-code repo. You have your own repo, right? Right?!
LOVE IT, HATE IT? LET US KNOW
KODE VICIOUS, known to mere mortals as George V. Neville-Neil, works on networking and operating system code for fun and profit. He also teaches courses on various subjects related to programming. His areas of interest are code spelunking, operating systems, and rewriting your bad code (OK, maybe not that last one). He earned his bachelor's degree in computer science at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, and is a member of ACM, the Usenix Association, and IEEE. He is an avid bicyclist and traveler who currently lives in New York City.
© 2013 ACM 1542-7730/13/0400 $10.00
Originally published in Queue vol. 11, no. 4—
see this item in the ACM Digital Library
Follow Kode Vicious on Twitter
Have a question for Kode Vicious? E-mail him at firstname.lastname@example.org. If your question appears in his column, we'll send you a rare piece of authentic Queue memorabilia. We edit e-mails for style, length, and clarity.
Ivar Jacobson, Ed Seidewitz - A New Software Engineering
What happened to the promise of rigorous, disciplined, professional practices for software development?
Erik Meijer, Vikram Kapoor - The Responsive Enterprise: Embracing the Hacker Way
Soon every company will be a software company.
Ivar Jacobson, Pan-Wei Ng, Ian Spence, Paul E. McMahon - Major-league SEMAT: Why Should an Executive Care?
Becoming better, faster, cheaper, and happier
Alex E. Bell - The Software Inferno
Dante's tale, as experienced by a software architect