4 ms·
As awesome as continuous deployment is, it is a large overhead to get going. This is especially true if you don't have high test coverage already. For smaller t
by snprbob86 16y ago
As awesome as continuous deployment is, it is a large overhead to get going. This is especially true if you don't have high test coverage already. For smaller teams and projects, you can simply remove the automatic step. Invest some time in packaging and deploying your product in a repeatable, reliable way. And don't re-invent the wheel, really investigate the standard tools for your language and platforms.
- eries 16y agoActually, continuous deployment does not necessarily need to be automated. In my experience, it's possible to get going with it in a totally incremental way. One easy way to get started is with this post: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/continuous-deployment-5-eas.html http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/continuous-deployment-5-eas...
- pacemkr 16y agoIf the point of continuous deployment is to get rid of deployment pain, it fails miserably. I've tried to do continuous deployment for a smaller, one man, project and it was effectively impossible. It was too much infrastructure to maintain for one person. The real question is does it save time at the end of the day? The overhead to set it up and keep it going is astronomical.
- j_baker 16y agoFor a larger, more complex project, it's a godsend though. Not just in terms of saving time, but also in terms of preventing errors that happen when you do things manually.