4 ms·

> Did CI save Google from the networking outage or tests prevent a global Cloudflare outage? This is not a fair statement. This is like saying "Did seatbelts s

> Did CI save Google from the networking outage or tests prevent a global Cloudflare outage? This is not a fair statement. This is like saying "Did seatbelts save the victims who died in car accidents X/Y/Z?" Just because your tests/ci/etc. can't catch every single issue that could go wrong doesn't make them useless. Just because people die every single day in car accidents doesn't mean car's safety features are useless. You're correct in that a CI should not in any way be considered a "perfect solution for outages", but an automated system that tests, deploys, etc. in a predictable and (again) testable manor is at least helpful.

KirinDave 7y ago
> This is not a fair statement. This is like saying "Did seatbelts save the victims who died in car accidents X/Y/Z?" Actually, your refutation is precisely what I'm trying to say! The GP implied that CI and UTs fix these problems. They don't. In the same sense that seatbelts and air bags may reduce the chance of a fatal accident, they do not replace safe driving, well-trained drivers and intelligent infrastructure design. > but an automated system that tests, deploys, etc. in a predictable and (again) testable manor is at least helpful. I didn't say otherwise. In fact I agreed those measures should be in place. They're just not sufficient. You will still face bad releases even if you do this, and so you shouldn't do fleetwide rollouts unless you just don't care about your system falling apart. Please don't misrepresent my comment.