3 ms·
Only at painfully backward companies. CI/CD is pretty standard at this point, even if it has a manual approval or two in there, as are automated tests. I would
by MattGaiser 3y ago
Only at painfully backward companies. CI/CD is pretty standard at this point, even if it has a manual approval or two in there, as are automated tests. I would be quite surprised to find strong AI adoption at firms without some version of these things already.
- galleywest200 3y agoWe have CI/CD but we still use our QA department. We have production permissions given to DevOps only so they must approve the pipeline, Developers cannot push to it. Dev hands off to QA, QA then hands off to DevOps. When we went for SOX compliance our auditors were pretty firm that having developers being the ones pushing to prod and not a separate team was a security issue.
- seneca 3y ago> When we went for SOX compliance our auditors were pretty firm that having developers being the ones pushing to prod and not a separate team was a security issue. That's surprising to hear. That's a very out of date take on SOX, in my experience. I've worked in thoroughly audited FedRAMP environments where the it's devs pushing and reviewing that triggers pipelines for prod release.
- MattGaiser 3y agoI’d argue that all meaningfully qualifies as CI/CD as long as there isn’t someone manually mucking with a command line. A pipeline of who gets to push to prod isn’t a big mistake prone deal.
- whoomp12341 3y agoand who is going to write all those automated tests?
- MattGaiser 3y agoCombo of devs and QA engineers. Are there companies where devs write no tests and those are all QA written? AI helps both of those.