3 ms·

It depends on the nature of the business. My experience (regulated financial institution) is that both front office and back office have teams which release hun

It depends on the nature of the business. My experience (regulated financial institution) is that both front office and back office have teams which release hundreds of times a week. It does depend on the maturity of the team (including the business which it’s part of), however. And not all teams are at this level, because of their own particular limitations. Don’t do CD as a tech/ego benchmark thing, however (or Facebook/Google envy). Do it if you can agree that this brings some benefits to the business — eg reduced risk, higher throughput, etc. Also delivering faster really forces you to examine your process for bottlenecks and strip away overhead. I really like this line from the blog: > The teams who have achieved CI/CD have not done so because they are better engineers than the rest of us. I promise you. They are teams that pay more attention to process than the rest of us.

detaro 6y ago
Delivery method also matters. E.g. having actual continuous deployment to customer devices in a typical embedded context is very different from continuously deploying a web app. Depending on the circumstances not always impossible, but the factors feeding into the evaluation if it's worth it are very different.
lhorie 6y ago
> Don’t do CD as a tech/ego benchmark thing, however (or Facebook/Google envy). Do it if you can agree that this brings some benefits to the business This is a really important point. Rapid releases are not always inherently better. I used to work in a company that dealt with heavy regulatory bureaucracy (in the sense that putting out wrong/misleading information could result in class action lawsuits), and because of that, workflows were highly optimized for waterfall delivery. This meant aggressive reliance on classical project management tools and techniques, and hyper-specialization (as opposed to the sort of full stack engineer approach taken by many bay area tech companies) - and this has worked well for that company for decades. You can also do hybrid approaches, e.g. continuous deployment to a QA environment, and have dedicated QA teams, while delivering to client on a waterfall schedule.
- bmhin 6y ago
  > You can also do hybrid approaches, e.g. continuous deployment to a QA environment, and have dedicated QA teams, while delivering to client on a waterfall schedule. I feel like this approach lets developers still spot check and make sure their code looks good when in QA while still giving the more anxious folks who need production to be holy to have their manual button press to get things live. Ideally, your pipeline is also at that point a simple button press to go from QA out to production. It also hopefully isolates any production issues to environmental differences as you will be in the "bundled changes" territory referenced in the article. From what I've experienced the FUD around letting things get into production rapidly really freaks out some organizations and having it hybridized is better than nothing.
scarmig 6y ago
FB/Google don't always or even usually do CD, either (unless you're talking about to some kind of staging or QA environment). There are always tradeoffs and different business requirements that need to be satisfied, and different approaches will make sense to address them.

detaro 6y ago

Delivery method also matters. E.g. having actual continuous deployment to customer devices in a typical embedded context is very different from continuously deploying a web app. Depending on the circumstances not always impossible, but the factors feeding into the evaluation if it's worth it are very different.

lhorie 6y ago

> Don’t do CD as a tech/ego benchmark thing, however (or Facebook/Google envy). Do it if you can agree that this brings some benefits to the business This is a really important point. Rapid releases are not always inherently better. I used to work in a company that dealt with heavy regulatory bureaucracy (in the sense that putting out wrong/misleading information could result in class action lawsuits), and because of that, workflows were highly optimized for waterfall delivery. This meant aggressive reliance on classical project management tools and techniques, and hyper-specialization (as opposed to the sort of full stack engineer approach taken by many bay area tech companies) - and this has worked well for that company for decades. You can also do hybrid approaches, e.g. continuous deployment to a QA environment, and have dedicated QA teams, while delivering to client on a waterfall schedule.

bmhin 6y ago
> You can also do hybrid approaches, e.g. continuous deployment to a QA environment, and have dedicated QA teams, while delivering to client on a waterfall schedule. I feel like this approach lets developers still spot check and make sure their code looks good when in QA while still giving the more anxious folks who need production to be holy to have their manual button press to get things live. Ideally, your pipeline is also at that point a simple button press to go from QA out to production. It also hopefully isolates any production issues to environmental differences as you will be in the "bundled changes" territory referenced in the article. From what I've experienced the FUD around letting things get into production rapidly really freaks out some organizations and having it hybridized is better than nothing.

scarmig 6y ago

FB/Google don't always or even usually do CD, either (unless you're talking about to some kind of staging or QA environment). There are always tradeoffs and different business requirements that need to be satisfied, and different approaches will make sense to address them.