> One release with three breaking changes is better than three broken pushes. Why? Each of those pushes you have one thing to check, and if it is messed up onl

> One release with three breaking changes is better than three broken pushes. Why? Each of those pushes you have one thing to check, and if it is messed up only one thing to revert. With a batched release you have multiple things to check, and are reverting other people's working stuff when you have to revert. Even worse, you have to choose between reverting slowly (but checking every feature) and possibly having to revert a second time because there was another bug you missed! > Personally, I favor stability vs. easier troubleshooting. This works for some products and not others. I don't understand. If you make the same number of changes with the same number of breakages, is packing them into a smaller window really more stable? Even worse the more time it takes you to fix those breakages, the less uptime you have... The opposite of stability. > All of the environments I govern match production 1:1 (sans data sanitation) in every way possible. I feel pretty strongly about this, if you can't test your code without pushing it into production, you should not be automating anything I agree with this! But... Then why are you advocating for staging to digress further from production waiting for a big release?