3 ms·
Why is that? The whole "you build it you run it" movement is an attempt to fix dev teams just not giving a fuck about quality of code they put out, especially
by ownagefool 6y ago
Why is that?
The whole "you build it you run it" movement is an attempt to fix dev teams just not giving a fuck about quality of code they put out, especially from a reliability point of view.
Why is the opposite better?
- Juliate 6y agoIt's a complement not an opposite. It's exactly like properly/cleverly documenting your code/project: not only for others now or in a few year, but also for yourself later on. It's having common rules across teams to get more reliability out of the whole company. You build it, you run it. Fine. Until the point when you can't anymore (because... reasons - it just happens). In any activity you want to sustain, you always have to have backups (in people and in processes), instead on relying on your-(self/team) alone.
- pantulis 6y agoI guess because that enforces the documentation to be good enough so that someone without the faintest idea of what the software does can operate it. Probably this approach is more scalable specially in big companies where you can have operation teams on-call for a myriad of project. I personally believe that this does not guarantee a better service.
- hyko 6y agoIf your teams don’t give a fuck about the quality of their code, why would they give a fuck about the quality of their production support?
- ownagefool 6y agoBecause they'll be rang at 4am...
- Juliate 6y agoAnd what happens when they (or the most competent elements of them) leave? You will need to do in a rush what could have been prepared before. A whole business takes that into account as importantly as their disaster recovery processes (which is not necessarily something you focus early on, but you eventually do).