• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Josheir

Teamwork - Debugging and Development

8 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I'm using Visual C++.

 

I've been waiting to ask this question, but because Markypooch has mentioned the term branching for git in another post:

 

Quote

(You can branch off the main project and work on smaller features in a way that won't destroy the build when something goes horribly wrong).

 

So, I though I'd ask now.  I am hoping for responses to be understandable toward a beginner/youngster and comprehensive too.

 

When everyone is working as a team on a project be it with Git or a regular software development team with source control how is the software worked on as a team.

I think the wording is "checking out parts of the software."

So if two people are needing to work on one part at the same time does one programmer wait for the other programmer or is there some other sort of methodology?

What if one is looking for an error and you don't know where it is and other members have "checked out parts of the program" how do people work/debug the same code.

And how does everyone stay organized in the debugging process?

Do people write portions of functions that one can guarantee more likely to work?

Maybe it is called merging when two programmers work on the same section at once and it is reassembled by hand while staying organized and well documented?

 

Perhaps we use instructive comments:

 

//Put a while loop here that...

//This function will take parameters that fit the requirements of...  and will cause the variables to ....

 

Maybe communication for using the same function:  my part will take and cause... your part will take and cause, and we build it in a fashion that is modular.   

 

When one person writes a program for themselves they can look at everything for  the bugs and solve them, how does this compare with working as a team?  Is more confidence and ability and organization needed?

 

Maybe we describe interfaces of modularity and use partiality.

 

 

Sincerely and Thankfully (this has been on my mind for a while now,)

Josheir

 

 

 

Edited by Josheir
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To nitpick on something Avalander said (it's generally true/correct, but there's one caveat):

Quote

there is a server with the master version of the code (as, for instance, github.com). Everybody who needs to work with the code, downloads a copy of the code from that server into their computer and work on that local copy in their computer. Once they are done working on a particular feature, they update the code in the server with their changes, and now the master version has their changes available to anybody that's going to work with that code in the future

The model Avalander described is called "distributed" source control -- that's how git and some others (like mercurial) work.  There are older source control systems (like CVS and SVN) that do not work like that.  I'll leave it as an exercise for you if you want to research the differences.  The important point is that not all source/version control systems are created equal.

That said, distributed version control systems, such as git, are immensely popular nowadays because the distributed model operates relatively cleanly, and it mitigates (but does not totally eliminate, so be careful!) the risk of completely destroying the code repository.  These days, you'd be hard-pressed to join a software project team that isn't already using a distributed system, so the exercise of researching other version control systems would probably prove to be more educational than practical.  But it's still probably useful to know and understand.

 

On another note, this may be a bit overkill for you right now, but keep the name "Git Flow" in your memory.  It's a git-based work flow meant for teams of programmers:  https://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, masskonfuzion said:

The model Avalander described is called "distributed" source control...

I beg to disagree. Distributed source control means that when you clone the repository, you get a copy of the whole repository, with its commit history and stuff, in your local machine. I suggest checking out the link below for differences between traditional and distributed source control systems.

https://betterexplained.com/articles/intro-to-distributed-version-control-illustrated/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I beg to disagree with your disagreement. Didn't you describe distributed source control?  Maybe I made a logical leap after reading what you wrote -- You said yourself:

Quote

there is a server with the master version of the code (as, for instance, github.com). Everybody who needs to work with the code, downloads a copy of the code from that server into their computer and work on that local copy in their computer.

I assumed you were implying that when you download from, e.g., github, you're getting the whole repository, plus commit history.  That is, in fact, how github (or any other git repository) works.

Even the git website itself describes git as "distributed" source control:  https://git-scm.com/

I wasn't saying you were wrong before; I was adding detail..  I'm not trolling here, just trying to be precise.

Edited by masskonfuzion
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think it's quite clear that Avalander's description fits pretty much every common source control usage. In fact, it could be argued that a true distributed source control model might not actually have a 'master' source copy, since each copy is essentially equal.

Don't get confused by the Git references and the fact that Git is a distributed source control system - if the main shared copy of the code lives on Github.com, that's practically no different to having a CVS or Subversion server somewhere. Coders connect to the server, pull down the files they work on, edit them, and push them back to the server. Git (like Mercurial, etc) just offers more flexibility in that every repository can act as a server if necessary.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0