Search Results

Search found 1144 results on 46 pages for 'teams'.

Page 5/46 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • SQL: GROUP BY after JOIN without overriding rows?

    - by krismeld
    I have a table of basketball leagues, a table af teams and a table of players like this: LEAGUES ID | NAME | ------------------ 1 | NBA | 2 | ABA | TEAMS: ID | NAME | LEAGUE_ID ------------------------------ 20 | BULLS | 1 21 | KNICKS | 2 PLAYERS: ID | TEAM_ID | FIRST_NAME | LAST_NAME | --------------------------------------------- 1 | 21 | John | Starks | 2 | 21 | Patrick | Ewing | Given a League ID, I would like to retrieve all the players' names and their team ID from all the teams in that league, so I do this: SELECT t.id AS team_id, p.id AS player_id, p.first_name, p.last_name FROM teams AS t JOIN players AS p ON p.team_id = t.id WHERE t.league_id = 1 which returns: [0] => stdClass Object ( [team_id] => 21 [player_id] => 1 [first_name] => John [last_name] => Starks ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [team_id] => 21 [player_id] => 2 [first_name] => Patrick [last_name] => Ewing ) + around 500 more objects... Since I will use this result to populate a dropdown menu for each team containing each team's list of players, I would like to group my result by team ID, so the loop to create these dropdowns will only have to cycle through each team ID instead of all 500+ players each time. But when I use the GROUP BY like this: SELECT t.id AS team_id, p.id AS player_id, p.first_name, p.last_name FROM teams AS t JOIN players AS p ON p.team_id = t.id WHERE t.league_id = 1 GROUP BY t.id it only returns one player from each team like this, overriding all the other players on the same team because of the use of the same column names. [0] => stdClass Object ( [team_id] => 21 [player_id] => 2 [first_name] => Patrick [last_name] => Ewing ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [team_id] => 22 [player_id] => 31 [first_name] => Shawn [last_name] => Kemp ) etc... I would like to return something like this: [0] => stdClass Object ( [team_id] => 2 [player_id1] => 1 [first_name1] => John [last_name1] => Starks [player_id2] => 2 [first_name2] => Patrick [last_name2] => Ewing +10 more players from this team... ) +25 more teams... Is it possible somehow?

    Read the article

  • Planning a competition

    - by Jérôme
    I need to produce the schedule of a sport-event. There are 30 teams. Each team has to play 8 matches. This means that it is not possible for each team to compete again all other teams, but I need to avoid that two team compete more than once against each other. My idea was to generate all possible matches (for 30 teams: (30*29)/2 = 435 matches) and select from this list 120 matches (8 match for each team: 8 * 30 / 2 = 120 matches). This is where I'm having a hard time: how can I select these 120 matches? I tried some simple solutions (take first match of the list, then the last, and so on) but they don't seem to work with 30 teams. I also tried to generate all possible match combination and find which one is working but with 30 team, this is too much calculation time. Is there an existing algorithm that I could implement?

    Read the article

  • alias some columns names as one field in oracle's join select query

    - by Marecky
    Hi We are developing something like a social networking website. I've got task to do 'follow me' functionality. In our website objects are users, teams, companies, channels and groups (please don't ask why there are groups and teams - it is complicated for me too, but teams are releated to user's talent) Users, teams, channels, companies and groups have all their own tables. I have a query which gets me all the follower's leaders like this select --fo.leader_id, --fo.leader_type, us.name as user_name, co.name as company_name, ch.title as channel_name, gr.name as group_name, tt.name as team_name from follow_up fo left join users us on (fo.leader_id = us.id and fo.leader_type = 'user') left join companies co on (fo.leader_id = co.user_id and fo.leader_type = 'company') left join channels ch on (fo.leader_id = ch.id and fo.leader_type = 'channel') left join groups gr on (fo.leader_id = gr.id and fo.leader_type = 'group') left join talent_teams tt on (fo.leader_id = tt.id and fo.leader_type = 'team') where follower_id = 83 I need to get all fields like: user_name, company_name, channel_name, group_name, team_name as one field in SELECT's product. I have tried to alias them all the same 'name' but Oracle numbered it. Please help :)

    Read the article

  • howto have condition in a nested SQL query?

    - by fenec
    here is my SQL statement , i would like to find all the games that have the status 0 and names of teams that are like key_word or the sport's name that are like the key word. The problem is that all the games that are displayed don't have status 0 . What am i doing wrong? sql="select * from games where games.status=0 and games.team_2_id IN (select id from teams where name like '"+key_word+"') or games.team_1_id IN (select id from teams where name like '"+key_word+"') or games.sport like '"+key_word+"' "

    Read the article

  • exec sp_executesql error 'Incorrect syntax near 1' when using datetime parameter

    - by anne78
    I have a Ssrs report which sends the following text to the database : EXEC ( 'DECLARE @TeamIds as TeamIdTableType ' + @Teams + ' EXEC rpt.DWTypeOfSicknessByCategoryReport @TeamIds , ' + @DateFrom + ', ' + @DateTo + ', ' + @InputRankGroups + ', ' + @SubCategories ) When I view this in profiler it interprets this as : exec sp_executesql N'EXEC ( ''DECLARE @TeamIds as TeamIdTableType '' + @Teams + '' EXEC rpt.DWTypeOfSicknessByCategoryAndEmployeeDetailsReport @TeamIds, '' + @DateFrom + '', '' + @DateTo + '', '' + @InputRankGroups + '', '' + @SubCategories )',N'@Teams nvarchar(34),@DateFrom datetime,@DateTo datetime,@InputRankGroups varchar(1),@SubCategories bit',@Teams=N'INSERT INTO @TeamIds VALUES (5); ',@DateFrom='2010-02-01 00:00:00',@DateTo='2010-04-30 00:00:00',@InputRankGroups=N'1',@SubCategories=1 When this sql runs it errors, on the dates. I have tried changing the format of the date but it does not help. If I remove the dates it works fine. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Developer’s Life – Attitude and Communication – They Can Cause Problems – Notes from the Field #027

    - by Pinal Dave
    [Note from Pinal]: This is a 27th episode of Notes from the Field series. The biggest challenge for anyone is to understand human nature. We human have so many things on our mind at any moment of time. There are cases when what we say is not what we mean and there are cases where what we mean we do not say. We do say and things as per our mood and our agenda in mind. Sometimes there are incidents when our attitude creates confusion in the communication and we end up creating a situation which is absolutely not warranted. In this episode of the Notes from the Field series database expert Mike Walsh explains a very crucial issue we face in our career, which is not technical but more to relate to human nature. Read on this may be the best blog post you might read in recent times. In this week’s note from the field, I’m taking a slight departure from technical knowledge and concepts explained. We’ll be back to it next week, I’m sure. Pinal wanted us to explain some of the issues we bump into and how we see some of our customers arrive at problem situations and how we have helped get them back on the right track. Often it is a technical problem we are officially solving – but in a lot of cases as a consultant, we are really helping fix some communication difficulties. This is a technical blog post and not an “advice column” in a newspaper – but the longer I am a consultant, the more years I add to my experience in technology the more I learn that the vast majority of the problems we encounter have “soft skills” included in the chain of causes for the issue we are helping overcome. This is not going to be exhaustive but I hope that sharing four pieces of advice inspired by real issues starts a process of searching for places where we can be the cause of these challenges and look at fixing them in ourselves. Or perhaps we can begin looking at resolving them in teams that we manage. I’ll share three statements that I’ve either heard, read or said and talk about some of the communication or attitude challenges highlighted by the statement. 1 – “But that’s the SAN Administrator’s responsibility…” I heard that early on in my consulting career when talking with a customer who had serious corruption and no good recent backups – potentially no good backups at all. The statement doesn’t have to be this one exactly, but the attitude here is an attitude of “my job stops here, and I don’t care about the intent or principle of why I’m here.” It’s also a situation of having the attitude that as long as there is someone else to blame, I’m fine…  You see in this case, the DBA had a suspicion that the backups were not being handled right.  They were the DBA and they knew that they had responsibility to ensure SQL backups were good to go – it’s a basic requirement of a production DBA. In my “As A DBA Where Do I start?!” presentation, I argue that is job #1 of a DBA. But in this case, the thought was that there was someone else to blame. Rather than create extra work and take on responsibility it was decided to just let it be another team’s responsibility. This failed the company, the company’s customers and no one won. As technologists – we should strive to go the extra mile. If there is a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities and we know it – we should push to get it resolved. Especially as the DBAs who should act as the advocates of the data contained in the databases we are responsible for. 2 – “We’ve always done it this way, it’s never caused a problem before!” Complacency. I have to say that many failures I’ve been paid good money to help recover from would have not happened had it been for an attitude of complacency. If any thoughts like this have entered your mind about your situation you may be suffering from it. If, while reading this, you get this sinking feeling in your stomach about that one thing you know should be fixed but haven’t done it.. Why don’t you stop and go fix it then come back.. “We should have better backups, but we’re on a SAN so we should be fine really.” “Technically speaking that could happen, but what are the chances?” “We’ll just clean that up as a fast follow” ..and so on. In the age of tightening IT budgets, increased expectations of up time, availability and performance there is no room for complacency. Our customers and business units expect – no demand – the best. Complacency says “we will give you second best or hopefully good enough and we accept the risk and know this may hurt us later. Sometimes an organization will opt for “good enough” and I agree with the concept that at times the perfect can be the enemy of the good. But when we make those decisions in a vacuum and are not reporting them up and discussing them as an organization that is different. That is us unilaterally choosing to do something less than the best and purposefully playing a game of chance. 3 – “This device must accept interference from other devices but not create any” I’ve paraphrased this one – but it’s something the Federal Communications Commission – a federal agency in the United States that regulates electronic communication – requires of all manufacturers of any device that could cause or receive interference electronically. I blogged in depth about this here (http://www.straightpathsql.com/archives/2011/07/relationship-advice-from-the-fcc/) so I won’t go into much detail other than to say this… If we all operated more on the premise that we should do our best to not be the cause of conflict, and to be less easily offended and less upset when we perceive offense life would be easier in many areas! This doesn’t always cause the issues we are called in to help out. Not directly. But where we see it is in unhealthy relationships between the various technology teams at a client. We’ll see teams hoarding knowledge, not sharing well with others and almost working against other teams instead of working with them. If you trace these problems back far enough it often stems from someone or some group of people violating this principle from the FCC. To Sum It Up Technology problems are easy to solve. At Linchpin People we help many customers get past the toughest technological challenge – and at the end of the day it is really just a repeatable process of pattern based troubleshooting, logical thinking and starting at the beginning and carefully stepping through to the end. It’s easy at the end of the day. The tough part of what we do as consultants is the people skills. Being able to help get teams working together, being able to help teams take responsibility, to improve team to team communication? That is the difficult part, and we get to use the soft skills on every engagement. Work on professional development (http://professionaldevelopment.sqlpass.org/) and see continuing improvement here, not just with technology. I can teach just about anyone how to be an excellent DBA and performance tuner, but some of these soft skills are much more difficult to teach. If you want to get started with performance analytics and triage of virtualized SQL Servers with the help of experts, read more over at Fix Your SQL Server. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: Notes from the Field, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL

    Read the article

  • Finalists for the Microsoft Accelerator for Windows Azure

    - by ScottGu
    Today, I am pleased to announce the ten finalists for the Microsoft Accelerator for Windows Azure powered by TechStars. These startups are about to launch into a three-month program where they will develop new products and businesses using Windows Azure. The response to the program has been fantastic - we received nearly 600 applications from entrepreneurs in 69 countries around the world, spanning a host of industries including retail, travel, entertainment, banking, real estate and more.  There were so many innovative ideas and amazing teams that it really made the selection process hard.  We finally landed on 10 finalists, based on their experience, qualifications, and innovative business ideas built on the cloud. This fall’s Windows Azure class includes: Advertory – Berlin, Germany. Advertory helps local businesses increase revenue and build customer loyalty. Appetas – Seattle, WA. Appetas' mission is to make restaurants look as beautiful online as they do on the plate! BagsUp – Sydney, Australia. Find great places from people you trust. Embarke – San Diego, CA. Embarke allows developers and companies the ability to integrate with any human communication channel (Facebook, Email, Text Message, Twitter) without having to learn the specifics, write code, or spend time on any of them. Fanzo – Seattle, WA. Fanzo puts sports fans in the spotlight. Find other fans, show off your fanswagger and get rewarded for your passion. MetricsHub – Bellevue, WA. A service providing cloud monitoring with incident detection and prebuilt workflows for remedying common problems. Mobilligy – Bellevue, WA. Mobilligy revolutionizes how people pay their bills by bringing convenient, secure, and instant bill payment support to mobile devices. Realty Mogul – Los Angeles, CA. Realty Mogul is a crowdfunding platform for real estate where accredited investors pool capital and invest in properties that are acquired, managed and eventually resold by professional private real estate companies and their management teams. Staq – San Francisco, CA. Back-end as a service for APIs. Socedo – Bellevue, WA. A simple and effective web application for lead generation and relationship management on Twitter. Each startup will be hosted in Seattle and mentored by entrepreneurs and venture capitalists as well as leaders from Windows Azure and other Microsoft organizations. The teams will spend the first month ideating and refining their business concepts with input and advice from their mentors as well as Microsoft customers, followed by two months of design and development. They will present their results to investors and Microsoft partners at an event in mid-January. We are really looking forward to seeing how their businesses evolve.  These teams have demonstrated incredible energy, passion, and innovative capabilities – and they are ready to show the world what’s possible with Windows Azure. Thanks, Scott P.S. And if you are new to Twitter you can also optionally follow me: @scottgu

    Read the article

  • Winnipeg VS.NET 2010 Launch Event Rolls On&hellip;

    - by D'Arcy Lussier
    We’re into the afternoon sessions at the Winnipeg VS.NET launch event! After Steve Porter does his magic on “What’s New for Teams with VS.NET 2010” I’ll be tag-teaming with my colleague Jason Klassen on ASP.NET and VS.NET 2010. Popcorn and prizes are coming up! Miguel Carrasco from Anvil Digital speaking to the masses. Steve starting in on What’s New for Teams in VS.NET 2010.

    Read the article

  • Leading an offshore team

    - by Chuck Conway
    I'm in a position where I am leading two teams of 4. Both teams are located in India. I am on the west coast of the U.S. I'm finding leading remote teams challenging: First, their command of the English language is weak. Second, I'm having difficultly understanding them through their accents. Third is timing, we are 12 hours apart. We use Skype to communicate. I have a month to get the project done. We've burned through a week just setting up the environments. At this point I'm considering working their hours, 11p PDT to 7a PDT, to get them up to speed, so that I can get the project off the ground. A 12 hour lag time is too much. I'm looking for steps I can take to be successful at leading an offshore team. Update The offshore team's primary task is coding, of course, most coding tasks do involve some design work. The offshore team's are composed of one lead, 2 mid level (4 to 5 years) developers and a junior (~2 years) developer. The project is classic waterfall. We've handed the offshore team a business and a technical design document. We are trying to manage the offshore in an agile way. We have daily conference calls with them and I'm requiring the teams to send me a daily scrum in the form of an email answering the following questions: What did I do today? What am I going to do tomorrow? What do I need from Chuck so I can do my job tomorrow? There is some ambiguity in the tasks. The intent was to give them enough direction for them to develop the task with out writing the code for them. I don't have a travel budget. I am using Fogbugz to track the tasks. Each task has been entered into Fogbugz and given a priority. Each team member has access to FogBugz and can choose what task they wish to complete. Related question: What can we do to improve the way outsourcing/offshoring works? Update 2 I've decided that I can not talk to the team once a day. I must work with them. Starting tonight I've started working the same hours they are. This makes me available to them when they have questions. It also allows me to gain their trust and respect. Stackoverflow question Leading an offshore team

    Read the article

  • Unexpected advantage of Engineered Systems

    - by user12244672
    It's not surprising that Engineered Systems accelerate the debugging and resolution of customer issues. But what has surprised me is just how much faster issue resolution is with Engineered Systems such as SPARC SuperCluster. These are powerful, complex, systems used by customers wanting extreme database performance, app performance, and cost saving server consolidation. A SPARC SuperCluster consists or 2 or 4 powerful T4-4 compute nodes, 3 or 6 extreme performance Exadata Storage Cells, a ZFS Storage Appliance 7320 for general purpose storage, and ultra fast Infiniband switches.  Each with its own firmware. It runs Solaris 11, Solaris 10, 11gR2, LDoms virtualization, and Zones virtualization on the T4-4 compute nodes, a modified version of Solaris 11 in the ZFS Storage Appliance, a modified and highly tuned version of Oracle Linux running Exadata software on the Storage Cells, another Linux derivative in the Infiniband switches, etc. It has an Infiniband data network between the components, a 10Gb data network to the outside world, and a 1Gb management network. And customers can run whatever middleware and apps they want on it, clustered in whatever way they want. In one word, powerful.  In another, complex. The system is highly Engineered.  But it's designed to run general purpose applications. That is, the physical components, configuration, cabling, virtualization technologies, switches, firmware, Operating System versions, network protocols, tunables, etc. are all preset for optimum performance and robustness. That improves the customer experience as what the customer runs leverages our technical know-how and best practices and is what we've tested intensely within Oracle. It should also make debugging easier by fixing a large number of variables which would otherwise be in play if a customer or Systems Integrator had assembled such a complex system themselves from the constituent components.  For example, there's myriad network protocols which could be used with Infiniband.  Myriad ways the components could be interconnected, myriad tunable settings, etc. But what has really surprised me - and I've been working in this area for 15 years now - is just how much easier and faster Engineered Systems have made debugging and issue resolution. All those error opportunities for sub-optimal cabling, unusual network protocols, sub-optimal deployment of virtualization technologies, issues with 3rd party storage, issues with 3rd party multi-pathing products, etc., are simply taken out of the equation. All those error opportunities for making an issue unique to a particular set-up, the "why aren't we seeing this on any other system ?" type questions, the doubts, just go away when we or a customer discover an issue on an Engineered System. It enables a really honed response, getting to the root cause much, much faster than would otherwise be the case. Here's a couple of examples from the last month, one found in-house by my team, one found by a customer: Example 1: We found a node eviction issue running 11gR2 with Solaris 11 SRU 12 under extreme load on what we call our ExaLego test system (mimics an Exadata / SuperCluster 11gR2 Exadata Storage Cell set-up).  We quickly established that an enhancement in SRU12 enabled an 11gR2 process to query Infiniband's Subnet Manager, replacing a fallback mechanism it had used previously.  Under abnormally heavy load, the query could return results which were misinterpreted resulting in node eviction.  In several daily joint debugging sessions between the Solaris, Infiniband, and 11gR2 teams, the issue was fully root caused, evaluated, and a fix agreed upon.  That fix went back into all Solaris releases the following Monday.  From initial issue discovery to the fix being put back into all Solaris releases was just 10 days. Example 2: A customer reported sporadic performance degradation.  The reasons were unclear and the information sparse.  The SPARC SuperCluster Engineered Systems support teams which comprises both SPARC/Solaris and Database/Exadata experts worked to root cause the issue.  A number of contributing factors were discovered, including tunable parameters.  An intense collaborative investigation between the engineering teams identified the root cause to a CPU bound networking thread which was being starved of CPU cycles under extreme load.  Workarounds were identified.  Modifications have been put back into 11gR2 to alleviate the issue and a development project already underway within Solaris has been sped up to provide the final resolution on the Solaris side.  The fixed SPARC SuperCluster configuration greatly aided issue reproduction and dramatically sped up root cause analysis, allowing the correct workarounds and fixes to be identified, prioritized, and implemented.  The customer is now extremely happy with performance and robustness.  Since the configuration is common to other customers, the lessons learned are being proactively rolled out to other customers and incorporated into the installation procedures for future customers.  This effectively acts as a turbo-boost to performance and reliability for all SPARC SuperCluster customers.  If this had occurred in a "home grown" system of this complexity, I expect it would have taken at least 6 months to get to the bottom of the issue.  But because it was an Engineered System, known, understood, and qualified by both the Solaris and Database teams, we were able to collaborate closely to identify cause and effect and expedite a solution for the customer.  That is a key advantage of Engineered Systems which should not be underestimated.  Indeed, the initial issue mitigation on the Database side followed by final fix on the Solaris side, highlights the high degree of collaboration and excellent teamwork between the Oracle engineering teams.  It's a compelling advantage of the integrated Oracle Red Stack in general and Engineered Systems in particular.

    Read the article

  • Multiple test Active Directory envirovments hand in hand with production domain controllers

    - by MadBoy
    What's the best approach of having multiple test environments next to production one? We have multiple programming teams that build solutions that use Active Directory very often. We have tried different approaches, starting with their own domain controllers (in same subnet), or additional OU's in our production AD that the team gets control over and can create/delete accounts within that one OU. We thought of possible 4 solutions: Setting up separate OU's in ou production env. Creating subdomains for our contoso.com domain like test.contoso.com, something.contoso.com and delegating control to the teams (would we need additional DC's or the two that we have already would be enough to hold this? Setting up additional test domain controler that has a trust to our main domain and all teams can use the test domain controler as they please. Setting up single domain controller for every team/project. We're taking in consideration amount of resources needed, security (for example having multiple domain controlers with multiple passwords may lead users to use simpler passwords) and overall best practices for this scenario.

    Read the article

  • How can we make agile enjoyable for developers that like to personally, independently own large chunks from start to finish

    - by Kris
    We’re roughly midway through our transition from waterfall to agile using scrum; we’ve changed from large teams in technology/discipline silos to smaller cross-functional teams. As expected, the change to agile doesn’t suit everyone. There are a handful of developers that are having a difficult time adjusting to agile. I really want to keep them engaged and challenged, and ultimately enjoying coming to work each day. These are smart, happy, motivated people that I respect on both a personal and a professional level. The basic issue is this: Some developers are primarily motivated by the joy of taking a piece of difficult work, thinking through a design, thinking through potential issues, then solving the problem piece by piece, with only minimal interaction with others, over an extended period of time. They generally complete work to a high level of quality and in a timely way; their work is maintainable and fits with the overall architecture. Transitioning to a cross-functional team that values interaction and shared responsibility for work, and delivery of working functionality within shorter intervals, the teams evolve such that the entire team knocks that difficult problem over. Many people find this to be a positive change; someone that loves to take a problem and own it independently from start to finish loses the opportunity for work like that. This is not an issue with people being open to change. Certainly we’ve seen a few people that don’t like change, but in the cases I’m concerned about, the individuals are good performers, genuinely open to change, they make an effort, they see how the rest of the team is changing and they want to fit in. It’s not a case of someone being difficult or obstructionist, or wanting to hoard the juiciest work. They just don’t find joy in work like they used to. I’m sure we can’t be the only place that hasn’t bumped up on this. How have others approached this? If you’re a developer that is motivated by personally owning a big chunk of work from end to end, and you’ve adjusted to a different way of working, what did it for you?

    Read the article

  • How can we make agile enjoyable for developers that like to personally, independently own large chunks from start to finish

    - by Kris
    We’re roughly midway through our transition from waterfall to agile using scrum; we’ve changed from large teams in technology/discipline silos to smaller cross-functional teams. As expected, the change to agile doesn’t suit everyone. There are a handful of developers that are having a difficult time adjusting to agile. I really want to keep them engaged and challenged, and ultimately enjoying coming to work each day. These are smart, happy, motivated people that I respect on both a personal and a professional level. The basic issue is this: Some developers are primarily motivated by the joy of taking a piece of difficult work, thinking through a design, thinking through potential issues, then solving the problem piece by piece, with only minimal interaction with others, over an extended period of time. They generally complete work to a high level of quality and in a timely way; their work is maintainable and fits with the overall architecture. Transitioning to a cross-functional team that values interaction and shared responsibility for work, and delivery of working functionality within shorter intervals, the teams evolve such that the entire team knocks that difficult problem over. Many people find this to be a positive change; someone that loves to take a problem and own it independently from start to finish loses the opportunity for work like that. This is not an issue with people being open to change. Certainly we’ve seen a few people that don’t like change, but in the cases I’m concerned about, the individuals are good performers, genuinely open to change, they make an effort, they see how the rest of the team is changing and they want to fit in. It’s not a case of someone being difficult or obstructionist, or wanting to hoard the juiciest work. They just don’t find joy in work like they used to. I’m sure we can’t be the only place that hasn’t bumped up on this. How have others approached this? If you’re a developer that is motivated by personally owning a big chunk of work from end to end, and you’ve adjusted to a different way of working, what did it for you?

    Read the article

  • How to share problem solving knowledge in a multiteam group?

    - by jonathan
    I've been working in multiteam groups for as long as I'm a webdeveloper, for me a team can be a lonely soldier or several people, generally a company will have multiple teams working in different projects and once the project is out in the wild, any team can perform the maintenance. This is a small picture since I'm not talking only about project wise knowledge, but "craft wise" knowledge, but it gives the picture of how I'm used to work, so: Since we work on modularised teams, sometimes I feel like the teams are too tightly enclosed in their projects, I've seen cases where after an hour of discussion, someone asked the question aloud and other person totally unrelated answered in a much simpler fashion. The problem is not so simple to solve as people tend not to be available all the time, also sometimes people can't afford the time to go through a problem with the "asker", but could do it alone. I've thought about software based solutions, something in the lines of SE, but I'd like to know other programmers opinions on the subject. EDIT I don't know if this is a wikipedia complex, but I feel that Wikis don't encourage the user to actually ask questions, but rather to write articles, and sometimes we don't know the knowledge we need, before needing it.

    Read the article

  • What are the common mistakes in 'tailored Scrum approaches'?

    - by Clark Gable
    I have seen this before. Management wants to be agile and be scrummified, but does not want to step out of the status quo. My latest observation is no different; here, the Scrum is 'tailored' to the organization; specifically into a weird many-people-process. The diagram showing the different participants. I am putting together a document listing why this will not work. Here are the obvious ones: 1. There are product owner agents (an obvious WTF), who report to the product owner: causing dilution of decision making capability 2. There is a role that looks similar to a manager in the traditional approach - development manager: an obvious attempt at command-and-control model 3. The ScrumMaster's role includes collecting timesheets, which are used to track progress instead of burndown charts: detrimental to agile's efforts to build teams with motivated individuals Leaving the question "how would you convince the management?", my question is more at, "what else do you see as failures in this/similar 'tailored Scrum approaches'? EDIT: The diagram might use a few more details 1. The development manager is not part of the development team, with not very clearly defined responsibilities, except: developer performance assessemnt, recruitment, etc., 2. There are more than two teams (with ScrumMaster+development manager+dev team) with the same product owner for all teams!

    Read the article

  • What is Stackify?

    - by Matt Watson
    You have developers, applications, and servers. Stackify makes sure that they are all working efficiently. Our mission is to give developers the integrated tools they need to better troubleshoot and monitor the applications they create and the servers that they run on. Traditional IT operations tools are designed for network and system administrators. Developers commonly spend 30% of their time working with IT Operations remediating application service problems. Developers currently lack tools to efficiently support the applications they create. Stackify delivers the application support functionality that developers need:View application deployment locations, versions, and historyBrowse files on servers to ensure proper deploymentsAccess configuration and log files on serversRemotely restart windows services, scheduled tasks, and web applicationsBasic server monitoring and alertsCollects all application exceptions to a centralized pointLog and report on custom applications eventsStackify is building an integrated DevOps solution delivered from the cloud designed to meet the needs of developers but also help unify the working relationship with IT operations teams and existing security roles. Our goal is to help unify the interaction between developers and IT operations. Stackify allows both teams to have visibility that they never had before  to solve complex application service issues easier and faster. Stackify’s CEO and CTO both have experience managing very large and high growth software development teams. That experience is driving our design in Stackify to deliver the integrated tools we always wished we had, the next generation of development operations tools.

    Read the article

  • Get Unlimited Oracle Training for Your Team for an Entire Year

    - by KJones
    Written By Amit Kumar, Senior Director Oracle University Digital Training  Oracle University has been in the training business for a long time (over 30 years!) and has worked with many Oracle customers over the years.  We understand that getting your teams trained on the latest Oracle technologies is not always easy. Training becomes more challenging when you have remote teams, team members with different skill levels or experienced team members who just need the content that covers the latest product features. It can also be challenging to predict your training needs for the year, making it all the more difficult to provide training in a timely manner. Oracle Unlimited Learning Subscription is the Answer We’ve listened to our customers and we’ve worked hard to put together a flexible training solution that enables team members to get the training that addresses their individual needs, right when they need it. This new Oracle Unlimited Learning Subscription provides teams with one year of unlimited access to: •    All of Oracle's Training On Demand video courses for in-depth product training •    All of Oracle's Learning Streams, which provide fresh product content from Oracle experts for continuous learning •    Live connections with Oracle's top instructors  •    Dedicated labs for hands-on practice The Oracle Unlimited Learning Subscription is 100% digital, giving you maximum flexibility. It simplifies how you plan and budget for your team training.  Learning Oracle and staying connected with Oracle really has never been easier. Take a tour and contact your Oracle University representative today to learn more and request a demo. 

    Read the article

  • How can my team avoid frequent errors after refactoring?

    - by SDD64
    to give you a little background: I work for a company with roughly twelve Ruby on Rails developers (+/- interns). Remote work is common. Our product is made out of two parts: a rather fat core, and thin up to big customer projects built upon it. Customer projects usually expand the core. Overwriting of key features does not happen. I might add that the core has some rather bad parts that are in urgent need of refactorings. There are specs, but mostly for the customer projects. The worst part of the core are untested (as it should be...). The developers are split into two teams, working with one or two PO for each sprint. Usually, one customer project is strictly associated with one of the teams and POs. Now our problem: Rather frequently, we break each others stuff. Some one from Team A expands or refactors the core feature Y, causing unexpected errors for one of Team B's customer projects. Mostly, the changes are not announced over the teams, so the bugs hit almost always unexpected. Team B, including the PO, thought about feature Y to be stable and did not test it before releasing, unaware of the changes. How to get rid of those problems? What kind of 'announcement technique' can you recommend me?

    Read the article

  • Advice and resources on collaborative environments

    - by Tjaart
    I need some advice on collaborative software environments. More specifically, I am looking for books and reference materials that can aid me in understanding team and code structures and the interactions thereof. In other words books, blogs or white papers explaining: Different strategies for structuring teams that share common code between each other but have distinct individual functions? To summarise my question I would like to know what would be a good source of knowledge if I were to set up teams in an organisation that shared code but each unit still remained autonomous. I have done some research on this subject and explored: code review tools, distributed VCS, continuous integration tools, Unit testing automation. The tough part about implementing these tools are to determine where a good place would be to start, which tools are low hanging fruit, which tools or methods provide higher success rates. If someone asks me about code quality reference I point them to Code Complete. I am looking for an equivalent guide on software team structures and tools to make this equation work better. I realise that this question is quite vague but it arose as "we need to share code between teams without breaking each others stuff and causing management headaches and reams of red tape" The answer is definitely not simple and requires changes on many levels, hence the question. If the question is too vague please vote to close or delete. I would accept any good starting point as an answer.

    Read the article

  • Creating multiple heads in remote repository

    - by Jab
    We are looking to move our team (~10 developers) from SVN to mercurial. We are trying to figure out how to manage our workflow. In particular, we are trying to see if creating remote heads is the right solution. We currently have a very large repository with multiple, related projects. They share a lot of code, but pieces of the project are deployed by different teams (3 teams) independent of other portions of the code-base. So each team is working on concurrent large features. The way we currently handles this in SVN are branches. Team1 has a branch for Feature1, same deal for the other teams. When Team1 finishes their change, it gets merged into the trunk and deployed out. The other teams follow suite when their project is complete, merging of course. So my initial thought are using Named Branches for these situations. Team1 makes a Feature1 branch off of the default branch in Hg. Now, here is the question. Should the team PUSH that branch, in it's current/half-state to the repository. This will create a second head in the core repo. My initial reaction was "NO!" as it seems like a bad idea. Handling multiple heads on our repository just sounds awful, but there are some advantages... First, the teams want to setup Continuous Integration to build this branch during their development cycle(months long). This will only work if the CI can pull this branch from the repo. This is something we do now with SVN, copy a CI build and change the branch. Easy. Second, it makes it easier for any team member to jump onto the branch and start working. Without pushing to the core repo, they would have to receive a push from a developer on that team with the changeset information. It is also possible to lose local commits to hardware failure. The chances increase a lot if it's a branch by a single developer who has followed the "don't push until finished" approach. And lastly is just for ease of use. The developers can easily just commit and push on their branch at any time without consequence(as they do today, in their SVN branches). Is there a better way to handle this scenario that I may be missing? I just want a veteran's opinion before moving forward with the strategy. For bug fixes we like the general workflow of mecurial, anonymous branches that only consist of 1-2 commits. The simplicity is great for those cases. By the way, I've read this , great article which seems to favor Named branches.

    Read the article

  • Creating a branch for every Sprint

    - by Martin Hinshelwood
    There are a lot of developers using version control these days, but a feature of version control called branching is very poorly understood and remains unused by most developers in favour of Labels. Most developers think that branching is hard and complicated. Its not! What is hard and complicated is a bad branching strategy. Just like a bad software architecture a bad branch architecture, or one that is not adhered to can prove fatal to a project. We I was at Aggreko we had a fairly successful Feature branching strategy (although the developers hated it) that meant that we could have multiple feature teams working at the same time without impacting each other. Now, this had to be carefully orchestrated as it was a Business Intelligence team and many of the BI artefacts do not lend themselves to merging. Today at SSW I am working on a Scrum team delivering a product that will be used by many hundreds of developers. SSW SQL Deploy takes much of the pain out of upgrading production databases when you are not using the Database projects in Visual Studio. With Scrum each Scrum Team works for a fixed period of time on a single sprint. You can have one or more Scrum Teams involved in delivering a product, but all the work must be merged and tested, ready to be shown to the Product Owner at the the Sprint Review meeting at the end of the current Sprint. So, what does this mean for a branching strategy? We have been using a “Main” (sometimes called “Trunk”) line and doing a branch for each sprint. It’s like Feature Branching, but with only ONE feature in operation at any one time, so no conflicts Figure: DEV folder containing the Development branches.   I know that some folks advocate applying a Label at the start of each Sprint and then rolling back if you need to, but I have always preferred the security of a branch. Like: being able to create a release from Main that has Sprint3 code even while Sprint4 is being worked on. being sure I can always create a stable build on request. Being able to guarantee a version (labels are not auditable) Be able to abandon the sprint without having to delete the code (rare I know, but would be a mess if it happened) Being able to see the flow of change sets through to a safe release It helps you find invalid dependencies when merging to Main as there may be some file that is in everyone’s Sprint branch, but never got checked in. (We had this at the merge of Sprint2) If you are always operating in this way as a standard it makes it easier to then add more scrum teams in the future. Muscle memory of this way of working. Don’t Like: Additional DB space for the branches Baseless merging between sprint branches when changes are directly ported Note: I do not think we will ever attempt this! Maybe a bit tougher to see the history between sprint branches since the changes go up through Main and down to another sprint branch Note: What you would have to do is see which Sprint the changes were made in and then check the history he same file in that Sprint. A little bit of added complexity that you would have to do anyway with multiple teams. Over time, you can end up with a lot of old unused sprint branches. Perhaps destroy with /keephistory can help in this case. Note: We ALWAYS delete the Sprint branch after it has been merged into Main. That is the theory anyway, and as you can see from the images Sprint2 has already been deleted. Why take the chance of having a problem rolling back or wanting to keep some of the code, when you can just abandon a branch and start a new one? It just seems easier and less painful to use a branch to me! What do you think?   Technorati Tags: TFS,TFS2010,Software Development,ALM,Branching

    Read the article

  • 256 Worker Role 3D Rendering Demo is now a Lab on my Azure Course

    - by Alan Smith
    Ever since I came up with the crazy idea of creating an Azure application that would spin up 256 worker roles (please vote if you like it ) to render a 3D animation created using the Kinect depth camera I have been trying to think of something useful to do with it. I have also been busy working on developing training materials for a Windows Azure course that I will be delivering through a training partner in Stockholm, and for customers wanting to learn Windows Azure. I hit on the idea of combining the render demo and a course lab and creating a lab where the students would create and deploy their own mini render farms, which would participate in a single render job, consisting of 2,000 frames. The architecture of the solution is shown below. As students would be creating and deploying their own applications, I thought it would be fun to introduce some competitiveness into the lab. In the 256 worker role demo I capture the rendering statistics for each role, so it was fairly simple to include the students name in these statistics. This allowed the process monitor application to capture the number of frames each student had rendered and display a high-score table. When I demoed the application I deployed one instance that started rendering a frame every few minutes, and the challenge for the students was to deploy and scale their applications, and then overtake my single role instance by the end of the lab time. I had the process monitor running on the projector during the lab so the class could see the progress of their deployments, and how they were performing against my implementation and their classmates. When I tested the lab for the first time in Oslo last week it was a great success, the students were keen to be the first to build and deploy their solution and then watch the frames appear. As the students mostly had MSDN suspicions they were able to scale to the full 20 worker role instances and before long we had over 100 worker roles working on the animation. There were, however, a few issues who the couple of issues caused by the competitive nature of the lab. The first student to scale the application to 20 instances would render the most frames and win; there was no way for others to catch up. Also, as they were competing against each other, there was no incentive to help others on the course get their application up and running. I have now re-written the lab to divide the student into teams that will compete to render the most frames. This means that if one developer on the team can deploy and scale quickly, the other team still has a chance to catch up. It also means that if a student finishes quickly and puts their team in the lead they will have an incentive to help the other developers on their team get up and running. As I was using “Sharks with Lasers” for a lot of my demos, and reserved the sharkswithfreakinlasers namespaces for some of the Azure services (well somebody had to do it), the students came up with some creative alternatives, like “Camels with Cannons” and “Honey Badgers with Homing Missiles”. That gave me the idea for the teams having to choose a creative name involving animals and weapons. The team rendering architecture diagram is shown below.   Render Challenge Rules In order to ensure fair play a number of rules are imposed on the lab. ·         The class will be divided into teams, each team choses a name. ·         The team name must consist of a ferocious animal combined with a hazardous weapon. ·         Teams can allocate as many worker roles as they can muster to the render job. ·         Frame processing statistics and rendered frames will be vigilantly monitored; any cheating, tampering, and other foul play will result in penalties. The screenshot below shows an example of the team render farm in action, Badgers with Bombs have taken a lead over Camels with Cannons, and both are  leaving the Sharks with Lasers standing. If you are interested in attending a scheduled delivery of my Windows Azure or Windows Azure Service bus courses, or would like on-site training, more details are here.

    Read the article

  • AppKata - Enter the next level of programming exercises

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Doing CodeKatas is all the rage lately. That´s great since widely accepted exercises are important to further the art. They provide a means of communication across platforms and allow to compare results which is part of any deliberate practice. But CodeKatas suffer from their size. They are intentionally small, so they can be done again and again. Repetition helps to build habit and to dig deeper. Over time ever new nuances of the problem or one´s approach become visible. On the other hand, though, their small size limits the methods, techniques, technologies that can be applied. To improve your TDD skills doing CodeKatas might be enough. But what about other skills? Developing on a software in a team, designing larger pieces of software, iteratively releasing software… all this and more is kinda hard to train using the tiny CodeKata problems. That´s why I´d like to present here another kind of kata I call Application Kata (or just AppKata). AppKatas are larger programming problems. They require the development of “whole” applications, i.e. not just one class or method, but bunches of classes accessible through a user interface. Also AppKata problems always are split into iterations. To get the most out of them, just look at the requirements of one iteration at a time. This way you´re closer to reality where requirements evolve in unexpected ways. So if you´re looking for more of a challenge for your software development skills, check out these AppKatas – or invent your own. AppKatas are platform independent like CodeKatas. Use whatever programming language and IDE you like. Also use whatever approach to software development you like. Just be sensitive to how easy it is to evolve your code across iterations. Reflect on what went well and what not. Compare your solutions with others. Or – for even more challenge – go for the “Coding Carousel” (see below). CSV Viewer An application to view CSV files. Sounds easy, but watch out! Requirements sometimes drastically change if the customer is happy with what you delivered. Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3 Iteration 4 Iteration 5 (to come) Questionnaire If you like GUI programming, this AppKata might be for you. It´s about an app to let people fill out questionnaires. Also this problem might be interestin for you, if you´re into DDD. Iteration 1 Iteration 2 (to come) Iteration 3 (to come) Iteration 4 (to come) Tic Tac Toe For developers who like game programming. Although Tic Tac Toe is a trivial game, this AppKata poses some interesting infrastructure challenges. The GUI, however, stays simple; leave any 3D ambitions at home ;-) Iteration 1 Iteration 2 (to come) Iteration 3 (to come) Iteration 4 (to come) Iteration 5 (to come) Coding Carousel There are many ways you can do AppKatas. Work on them alone or in a team, pitch several devs against each other in an AppKata contest – or go around in a Coding Carousel. For the Coding Carousel you need at least 3 dev teams (regardless of size). All teams work on the same iteration at the same time. But here´s the trick: After each iteration the teams swap their code. Whatever they did for iteration n will be the basis for changes another team has to apply in iteration n+1. The code is going around the teams like in a carousel. I promise you, that´s gonna be fun! :-)

    Read the article

  • Do you want to be an ALM Consultant?

    - by Martin Hinshelwood
    Northwest Cadence is looking for our next great consultant! At Northwest Cadence, we have created a work environment that emphasizes excellence, integrity, and out-of-the-box thinking.  Our customers have high expectations (rightfully so) and we wouldn’t have it any other way!   Northwest Cadence has some of the most exciting customers I have ever worked with and even though I have only been here just over a month I have already: Provided training/consulting for 3 government departments Created and taught courseware for delivering Scrum to teams within a high profile multinational company Started presenting Microsoft's ALM Engagement Program  So if you are interested in helping companies build better software more efficiently, then.. Enquire at [email protected] Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Consultant An ALM Consultant with a minimum of 8 years of relevant experience with Application Lifecycle Management, Visual Studio (including Visual Studio Team System) and software design is needed. Must provide thought leadership on best practices for enterprise architecture, understand the Microsoft technology solution stack, and have a thorough understanding of enterprise application integration. The ALM Practice Lead will play a central role in designing and implementing the overall ALM Practice strategy, including creating, updating, and delivering ALM courseware and consultancy engagements. This person will also provide project support, deliverables, and quality solutions on Visual Studio Team System that exceed client expectations. Engagements will vary and will involve providing expert training, consulting, mentoring, formulating technical strategies and policies and acting as a “trusted advisor” to customers and internal teams. Sound sense of business and technical strategy required. Strong interpersonal skills as well as solid strategic thinking are key. The ideal candidate will be capable of envisioning the solution based on the early client requirements, communicating the vision to both technical and business stakeholders, leading teams through implementation, as well as training, mentoring, and hands-on software development. The ideal candidate will demonstrate successful use of both agile and formal software development methods, enterprise application patterns, and effective leadership on prior projects. Job Requirements Minimum Education: Bachelor’s Degree (computer science, engineering, or math preferred). Locale / Travel: The Practice Lead position requires estimated 50% travel, most of which will be in the Continental US (a valid national Passport must be maintained).  This is a full time position and will be based in the Kirkland office. Preferred Education: Master’s Degree in Information Technology or Software Engineering; Premium Microsoft Certifications on .NET (MCSD) or MCPD or relevant experience; Microsoft Certified Trainer (MCT) or relevant experience. Minimum Experience and Skills: 7+ years experience with business information systems integration or custom business application design and development in a professional technology consulting, corporate MIS or software development environment. Essential Duties & Responsibilities: Provide training, consulting, and mentoring to organizations on topics that include Visual Studio Team System and ALM. Create content, including labs and demonstrations, to be delivered as training classes by Northwest Cadence employees. Lead development teams through the complete ALM and/or Visual Studio Team System solution. Be able to communicate in detail how a solution will integrate into the larger technical problem space for large, complex enterprises. Define technical solution requirements. Provide guidance to the customer and project team with respect to technical feasibility, complexity, and level of effort required to deliver a custom solution. Ensure that the solution is designed, developed and deployed in accordance with the agreed upon development work plan. Create and deliver weekly status reports of training and/or consulting progress. Engagement Responsibilities: · Provide a strong desire to provide thought leadership related to technology and to help grow the business. · Work effectively and professionally with employees at all levels of a customer’s organization. · Have strong verbal and written communication skills. · Have effective presentation, organizational and planning skills. · Have effective interpersonal skills and ability to work in a team environment. Enquire at [email protected]

    Read the article

  • Collaborative Organizations build Organizational Culture

    “A Collaborative organization builds its culture based on the idea of the family or an athletic team.”(Hoefling, 2001) As I grew up, I participated in many different types of clubs, civic organizations, and sports teams.  Now looking back at the more successful undertakings, I can see three commonalities amongst them. They all shared a defined purpose or goal, defined functional roles, and a shared sense of responsibility to the group. Defined Purpose or Goal In order to unit people to work together, they must share a common goal or have a common purpose. An example of this would be the Lions Club International Foundation. There purpose is to help everyone to lead healthier and more productive lives, nurtures the potential of youth, promotes health, serves the elderly, empowers the disabled and helps victims of disasters. This organization holds localized meetings across the world and works in conjunction with other localized clubs within there organization along with other organizations to promote common goals. If there are no common goals for the group, then there is nothing that binds people to the group, and nothing will be done. Defined Functional Roles In order for an organization to work and function as a team, they must have defined roles and everyone must know how their roles are interdependent on each other. Lets shed light on this subject by looking at a football team’s offense.  Each player has an assigned role to play each time the ball is snapped. The offensive line blocks for the running back or quarterback, the quarterback passes the ball to the wide receiver or hands it off to the running back and the running back and wide receivers run with the ball towards the goal line. Each member of this team shares a common goal of scoring a touchdown, but if each team member does not fulfill their assigned roles the offences will collapse and the team will lose yards. This will provide a set back to the teams goal of scoring a touchdown because they potential are then farther away from the goal line.  In addition, if all the players do not know their roles and how they are part of a larger team then even larger yard losses can occur. Shared Sense of Personal Responsibility to the Group Shared responsibility comes with the shared common goals. Each person in the organization must do their part to promote the common shared goal or purpose based on their abilities. A prime example of this is a wrestling team competing in a match. Points are awarded to the team based on how many wins the team achieves in the meet and of that how many wins where won by decision or by pin. If a wrestler pins his opponent the teams will receive 2 points for the win, but if the wrestler wins by decision, then the team only gets one point for the win. So it is the responsibility of each person on the team to not get pinned if they are unable to win the match. If the team member gets pinned then the other team receives an additional point for the win. References: Hoefling, T. (2001). Working Virtually: Managing People for Successful Virtual Teams and Organizations. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >