4 ms·
I think we are supposed to impressed, but my first reaction to the headline was “Oh God, that engineering department must be a complete disaster”. If a deploym
by OldHand2018 5y ago
I think we are supposed to impressed, but my first reaction to the headline was “Oh God, that engineering department must be a complete disaster”. If a deployment takes 20 seconds, that’s 2 hours per day spent deploying!
A few extra minutes spent planning and thinking could really reduce the number of deployments needed to a much more manageable number.
- GormanFletcher 5y agoI'm curious why you feel that way? The DevOps mantra is that you shouldn't be trying to manage deployments at all, except in aggregate. They should be seamless enough to become non-events that happen frequently and with maximal automation. Time spent doing deploys becomes irrelevant since it's a hands-off, low-risk process. The DevOps philosophy advocates that the process of developing code and infra to that point produces many benefits to the business: first-order benefits to code and infra quality since you're demanding more from them, and second-order benefits to the business that come from releasing many times per day and going from ticket to prod quickly. Under this philosophy, 125k annual deployments predicts the engineering department likely is exemplary rather than disastrous, since only an exemplary engineering department should be able to pull this off without frequent/severe mistakes damaging the business.
- joshuamorton 5y ago> If a deployment takes 20 seconds, that’s 2 hours per day spent deploying! My assumption would be to support this level of automation, the median deployment takes 0 seconds [of human time].