Revision as of 12:16, 10 August 2023 edit InternetArchiveBot (talk \| contribs) Bots, Pending changes reviewers 5,698,985 edits Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5) (Whoop whoop pull up - 14407 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:19, 2 December 2023 edit undo Goldygolden6 (talk \| contribs) 42 edits mNo edit summary Tag: Visual edit Next edit →
Line 109: * When unit tests fail or a [[Software bug\|bug]] emerges, if developers need to revert the codebase to a bug-free state without [[debugging]], only a small number of changes are lost (because integration happens frequently) * Constant availability of a "current" build for testing, demo, or release purposes * Frequent code check-in pushes developers to create modular, less complex code<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Junpeng \|first=Jiang \|last2=Zhu \|first2=Can \|last3=Zhang \|first3=Xiaofang \|date=July 2020 \|title=An Empirical Study on the Impact of Code Contributor on Code Smell \|url=https://qrs20.techconf.org/download/QRS-IJPE/12_An%20Empirical%20Study%20on%20the%20Impact%20of%20Code%20Contributor%20on%20Code%20Smell.pdf \|journal=International Journal of Performability Engineering \|volume=16 \|issue=7 \|pages=1067-1077 \|doi=10.23940/ijpe.20.07.p9.10671077}}</ref> * Frequent code check-in pushes developers to create modular, less complex code{{Citation needed\|date= November 2009}} With continuous automated testing, benefits can include:

Continuous integration: Difference between revisions