3 ms·
1) real emergencies should happen very rarely 2) if they do you dont want to wait until the tests pass - so it's outside of that process anyhow 3) the real ro
by andreasklinger 12y ago
1) real emergencies should happen very rarely
2) if they do you dont want to wait until the tests pass - so it's outside of that process anyhow
3) the real root problem here is: "emergency deploys need to be fast and adhoc" - not "linting is part of the ci process"
- gfodor 12y agoI'm not sure I agree -- having an alternate process for deployments in emergency scenarios is just asking for all kinds of trouble. It should be a well oiled machine that is consistent. If running the tests is part of the process, it should always be part of the process, otherwise you introduce additional complexity in trying to understand the potential outcomes of the system in unique scenarios. If the tests are slow that they gunk up the works, then the tests need to be fixed and the process changed. (Perhaps a large suite which runs nightly over less critical code, and a tight suite for mission critical code that runs pre-deploy.)