> 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 wh

> 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.