←back to thread

492 points storf45 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
softwaredoug ◴[] No.42157774[source]
The way to deal with this is to constantly do live events, and actually build organizational muscle. Not these massive one off events in an area the tech team has no experience in.
replies(9): >>42158542 #>>42158774 #>>42158782 #>>42158854 #>>42158930 #>>42159942 #>>42160430 #>>42160978 #>>42168444 #
mbrumlow ◴[] No.42158774[source]
I have this argument a lot in tech.

We should always be doing (the thing we want to do)

Somme examples that always get me in trouble (or at least big heated conversations)

1. Always be building: It does not matter if code was not changed, or there has been no PRs or whatever, build it. Something in your org or infra has likely changed. My argument is "I would rather have a build failure on software that is already released, than software I need to release".

2. Always be releasing: As before it does not matter if nothing changed, push out a release. Stress the system and make it go through the motions. I can't tell you how many times I have seen things fail to deploy simply because they have not attempted to do so in some long period of time.

There are more just don't have time to go into them. The point is if "you did it, and need to do it again ever in the future, then you need to continuously do it"

replies(6): >>42158807 #>>42158896 #>>42159793 #>>42159969 #>>42161140 #>>42161623 #
andai ◴[] No.42158896[source]
This is great, but what possible counterargument is there? We should prolong indefinitely a spooky ambiguity about whether the system works or not?
replies(6): >>42158935 #>>42158962 #>>42159076 #>>42159241 #>>42159259 #>>42159634 #
1. mplewis ◴[] No.42158935[source]
The common and flawed counterargument is “when we deploy, outages happen.” You’ll hear this constantly at companies with bad habits.