On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:39 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
With all due respect; hell, yes, development comes in
second to operational
stability.
This is not disrespecting development, which is extremely important by any
measure. But we're running a top-10 worldwide website, a key worldwide
information resource for humanity as a whole. We cannot cripple
development to try and maximize stability, but stability has to be priority
1. Any large website's teams will have the same attitude.
I've had operational outages reach the top of everyone's news
source/feed/newspaper/broadcast. This is an exceptionally unpleasant
experience.
If you really think stability is top priority, then you cannot possibly
think that the current deployment process is sane.
Right now you are placing the responsibility on the developers to make sure
the site is stable, because any change they merge might break production
since it is automatically sent out. If anything that gives the appearance
that the operations team doesn't care about stability, and would rather
wait until things break and revert them.
It is the responsibility of the operations team to ensure stability. Having
to revert something because that's the only way production will be stable
is not a proper workflow.
*-- *
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016
Major in Computer Science