Repository navigation
add draft summary #82
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
kieranjmartin
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
add-summary
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,3 +1,18 @@ | ||
| # Summary | ||
| # Conclusion | ||
|
|
||
| In summary, this book has no content whatsoever. | ||
| Git is the de facto standard for version control in software engineering, but its adoption in regulated clinical reporting is still at an early stage. This white paper looked at how Git and Git-based platforms such as GitHub, GitLab, and Azure DevOps can be used effectively and responsibly in clinical reporting, for quality control, and for collaboration. We believe adoption can be a net positive for organisations that are willing to invest in the processes, controls, and support needed to use it well. | ||
|
|
||
| The experience of the companies described in this paper shows that there is no single path to adoption. Organisations are at different stages, operate under different infrastructure and regulatory interpretations, and have made different choices about how much of Git's complexity to show their users. Even so, a common pattern is emerging: short-lived branches, protected main branches, pull requests with independent review, and links to issues for traceability. This suggests that the industry is converging on shared good practice, even where the details differ. | ||
|
|
||
| The main challenge is not technical. Git itself is mature, well documented, and widely supported. What decides whether adoption succeeds is how well organisations manage the change for their people. Programmers who are used to shared drives and manual versioning need time, practical training, and clear documentation that fits their day-to-day work. They also need regular reminders of why the change is worthwhile. Organisations that listen to feedback and adapt their approach are more likely to see Git become a routine part of the workflow rather than a burden. | ||
|
|
||
| Git also does not remove the need for sound process design. Choosing a branching strategy, defining how pull requests fit into QC, and deciding what counts as formal QC evidence all have to be decided deliberately for the type of work and the regulatory context. Git should support existing quality frameworks rather than replace them. Independent validation, controlled specifications, and appropriate protection of restricted data remain essential. | ||
|
|
||
| Done well, Git brings clear benefits to statistical programming: | ||
|
|
||
| - A transparent and complete history of changes. | ||
| - Structured, line-by-line peer review. | ||
| - Better traceability between requirements, code, and outputs. | ||
| - A foundation for automation and AI-assisted review. | ||
|
|
||
| As more organisations gain experience, tools mature, and regulatory expectations become clearer, we expect these practices to continue to evolve. We encourage organisations to share what they learn so that the industry can keep refining how Git is used in statistical programming. | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Could we use either "organisations" or "organizations" consistently throughout the white paper? This conclusion uses "organisations," while some other chapters use "organization." |
||
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we consider changing this to "A transparent and traceable history of changes"? Describing the history as "complete" may be too strong because Git history can be amended, squashed, rebased, or deleted unless appropriate repository controls are in place.