4 ms·

I would claim the opposite: CD makes each developer responsible for their own mess. You make a mistake, it will end blowing up in production. Without CD you ha

by yokaze 7y ago

I would claim the opposite: CD makes each developer responsible for their own mess. You make a mistake, it will end blowing up in production. Without CD you have a batch of changes, and the responsibility becomes diffused. The main gain I see from not doing continuous deployment is to manage the expectations of customers on reliability during a deployment. (We are deploying every X, at Y, expect some turbulence).

notyourday 7y ago
> I would claim the opposite: CD makes each developer responsible for their own mess. > You make a mistake, it will end blowing up in production. > Without CD you have a batch of changes, and the responsibility becomes diffused. If that's the case, then the project is too small and CD is a overhead. If the teams are large and CD is used for deploys then you need to have the supporting infrastructure on every step i.e. end-to-end integration tests, instrumentation, monitoring and automatic actions based on the instrumentation and monitoring. That's the unsexy part that's missing. > The main gain I see from not doing continuous deployment is to manage the expectations of customers on reliability during a deployment. (We are deploying every X, at Y, expect some turbulence). Making deploys hitless should be a step taken before going into CD.