4 ms·

I think it captures a subtle nuance pretty well. If you're building a SaaS app, you can release several times a day and users will not notice and be fine. If

I think it captures a subtle nuance pretty well. If you're building a SaaS app, you can release several times a day and users will not notice and be fine. If you're building a mobile app, you can release maybe 1-2 times a month and users will be fine. If you push out 3 app store updates every day, that is going against the market cadence. If you're building software for automated machinery, you can release maybe 1-2 times a year. The market will not accept running updates every night. Without considering the context of your market, saying things like "we need to be doing more CI/CD" or "we need to be working in 2 weeks sprints" or "we'll be ready to release the new version in 18 months" might not make much sense at all.

jdmichal 9y ago
I disagree. I got the opportunity to hear a talk from Jez Humble, and one of his examples was HP and printer drivers. So this is likely in your last scenario there. They still reaped a lot of benefits from fixing their development processes and advancing continuous integration and automated testing. It looks like it might be mentioned in this podcast, though I haven't listened yet: http://www.se-radio.net/2015/02/episode-221-jez-humble-on-continuous-delivery/ http://www.se-radio.net/2015/02/episode-221-jez-humble-on-co... EDIT: HP is covered roughly minutes 8-10. Also found this, though I'm having trouble getting the video to load to vet it: https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/continuous-delivery/9780134389363/CONT_01_05.html https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/continuous-de...
- swanson 9y ago
  I don't think we are in disagreement. Certainly there are benefits from these things. The crux is that practices will reach diminishing returns at different times depending on context -- one such piece of context being market cadence. Is continuous integration and automated testing helpful? Yes. Is the cost/effort to move from a process that can deploy monthly to one than deploy hourly worth it? Well, it depends -- if our customers want software updates once per year, then no, it doesn't particularly matter if "master is ALWAYS deployable" or "no builds are failing" on a given day.
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    Except what happens is that business want to release a completed feature. But you're half-way through your monthly deploy cycle and thereby have to either push the date or force your process faster. TheCoelacanth made a sibling comment to yours which I think addresses the idea very well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16774940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16774940
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  They define releasing at market cadence as being capable of releasing at will, so that you can release at any time that the market conditions make it desirable to release. That is in no way in conflict with CI and automated testing. In fact, it would be very difficult to achieve without them.

jdmichal 9y ago

I disagree. I got the opportunity to hear a talk from Jez Humble, and one of his examples was HP and printer drivers. So this is likely in your last scenario there. They still reaped a lot of benefits from fixing their development processes and advancing continuous integration and automated testing. It looks like it might be mentioned in this podcast, though I haven't listened yet: http://www.se-radio.net/2015/02/episode-221-jez-humble-on-continuous-delivery/ http://www.se-radio.net/2015/02/episode-221-jez-humble-on-co... EDIT: HP is covered roughly minutes 8-10. Also found this, though I'm having trouble getting the video to load to vet it: https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/continuous-delivery/9780134389363/CONT_01_05.html https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/continuous-de...

swanson 9y ago
I don't think we are in disagreement. Certainly there are benefits from these things. The crux is that practices will reach diminishing returns at different times depending on context -- one such piece of context being market cadence. Is continuous integration and automated testing helpful? Yes. Is the cost/effort to move from a process that can deploy monthly to one than deploy hourly worth it? Well, it depends -- if our customers want software updates once per year, then no, it doesn't particularly matter if "master is ALWAYS deployable" or "no builds are failing" on a given day.
- jdmichal 9y ago
  Except what happens is that business want to release a completed feature. But you're half-way through your monthly deploy cycle and thereby have to either push the date or force your process faster. TheCoelacanth made a sibling comment to yours which I think addresses the idea very well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16774940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16774940
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
They define releasing at market cadence as being capable of releasing at will, so that you can release at any time that the market conditions make it desirable to release. That is in no way in conflict with CI and automated testing. In fact, it would be very difficult to achieve without them.