4 ms·

Exactly this. One particularly haughty CEO I worked for came to this exact same revelation. "But what about bugs?" "Just tell the developers not to add any bugs

Exactly this. One particularly haughty CEO I worked for came to this exact same revelation. "But what about bugs?" "Just tell the developers not to add any bugs!" I'm not even kidding. That's what he said. Continuous release is fine for applications which aren't mission critical AND you have users who are accepting of an increase in bugs. Back in the real world, it's just not a good idea. We're all trying to calibrate the right balance between QA and output, and there are many ways to find the right balance. I remain unconvinced that "YOLO" is ever the right process.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
teknopaul 5y ago
Trunk dev and continuous releasing every push to trunk is not something I have heard suggested. If you want CD from some particular branch it would be silly to suggest the active dev branch. Trunk dev is about how and when new code is merged. It says nothing about when it is released. It's incorrect to think that any people doing trunk dev deploy from trunk willy nilly.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Trunk dev and continuous releasing every push to trunk is not something I have heard suggested. Maybe not explicitly, but that's how it comes off. > Trunk dev is about how and when new code is merged. > It says nothing about when it is released. So why does the compound "CI/CD" term even exist? (IMO, it sucks; all it does is introduce the confusion you're deploring.) > It's incorrect to think that any people doing trunk dev deploy from trunk willy nilly. Blame, if not the people using the term "trunk", then the ones using "CI/CD", for this confusion.