On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:39 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]>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 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
