In various blogs, books and conferences like citcon <http://citconf.com/> I have heard the term "continuous delivery" used to mean the overarching concepts that you mention needs a new name at the end.
Like all terms, it can grow in meaning, and runs a risk of being meaningless, but it does seem to have settled down to something useful (a bit like "cloud" which has a pretty fuzzy definition, but overall seems to be useful). Perhaps saying "CD" as just the initials has this affect, and is "good enough" to convey the concepts you mention? On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 2:06:42 PM UTC+10, Tom Moore wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I think it's probably poor wording on my part. I didn't mean to imply that >> CI is no longer a thing. I think of CD as a super set of CI, in the sense >> that everything you do under the banner CI also contributes to CD. >> >> I think you're starting down a good track here but let me throw in a > couple thoughts. When we look at the Continuous processes in terms of the > SDLC, there are three concepts that have been developed over the years. > The first is CI, which keeps pulling in developer changes as they are > committed, builds and tests them, thereby finding integration problems as > early as possible. Then came the first CD, Continuous Delivery, which > picks up the results of the CI outputs and makes sure they are always in a > deploy-able state (not necessarily actually delivering them), thereby > hopefully finding deployment preparation problems as early as possible, and > also always having the latest good build ready to deploy when its > desired. Then finally the second CD, Continuous Deployment. This one > takes the outputs that pass the Continuous Delivery processes and gates and > based on the rules/processes set up, automatically deploys them to a target > system. > > I think that trying to think of Continuous Deployment as a superset of CI > is actually trying to make Continuous Deployment into something its not. > Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, and Continuous Deployment are > separate but conceptually similar processes which are complimentary to each > other. Historically when trying to view similar processes through the lens > of one tends to cause the others to be diminished. Instead of doing > that here, I think what we need is a new conceptual model, one that > encompasses all three processes, but has each as a separate phase or > workflow. I'm just not sure what we would call it. Continuous > Integration, Delivery and Deployment (CIDD) doesn't really work for me. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/146c1026-4bd3-4205-b812-4bf144c9a5ac%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
