3 ms·
> If it's not part of the SOP, then no, you wont have those things Isn't this "adversarial" as well? Why would you withhold that information just because the S
by bambax 4y ago
> If it's not part of the SOP, then no, you wont have those things
Isn't this "adversarial" as well? Why would you withhold that information just because the SOP don't make you provide it? What will happen then is that eventually the service will break, nobody will know how to fix it, and they will come and ask you.
If you're no longer there, the service will be decommissioned and all your work will have been in vain. I don't see a net benefit for any of this.
- chrsig 4y agoI didn't mean it adversarially, but I can see how you came to that conclusion. Communication is hard. I was trying to convey that they wouldn't exist because it hadn't been asked for. People aren't mind readers, ops has to vocalize their needs. Which is what the post was doing. And I don't think those needs are unreasonable, either. My point was more that the work to make sure those things are available needs to happen higher up than you'll be able to reach by talking to any individual developer.
- bambax 4y agoAaah, ok! Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the explanation. (I was mostly in agreement with the OP and was surprised by the level of opposition to it in the comments.) Yes, it's better if the information asked for in the original post is in the SOP, but if it's not, then asking for it each time somebody sends something to production, while suboptimal, is better than nothing IMHO.