3 ms·

Its more that they don't track "releases". In my experience, early companies (that are not hardware related) that track full releases are very top heavy with no

Its more that they don't track "releases". In my experience, early companies (that are not hardware related) that track full releases are very top heavy with non technical leadership. This is because technical people generally understand in modern saas, releases aren't really an actual thing with early stage companies as they are constantly patching bugs and small features. The point about monitoring is more a "bus factor". If the organization in general has good visibility into the operation of the software, there tends to be less situations where only one person knows how a specific recurring issue gets resolved.

jandrewrogers 7y ago
There are many cases where the customer requirements dictate release adoption timelines (for business, regulatory, and/or logistical reasons), even on SaaS platforms. The way you deal with this in practice is running several releases in parallel in your production environment. This is messy and expensive so you optimize your release process to minimize the number of versions you have to support. The other common scenario is when deploying new releases is intrinsically extremely expensive in one or more dimensions. Some data infrastructure SaaS can be like this. Again, in these situations startups correctly optimize their release model differently than e.g. a website.
- mason55 7y ago
  Right, if you’re a high touch enterprise SaaS that requires things like customer training, good luck with pure CD. Your customers are going to be very cranky if stuff is changing all the time. That’s not to say you can’t get many of the good parts of CD but you’re going to be making releases and supporting a few different versions at all times. There’s just no way around it.