The more and more I use CICD tools, the more I see value in scripting out my deployment with shell scripts and Dockerfiles that can be run anywhere, to include within a CICD tool.
This way, the CICD tool is merely a launch point for the aforementioned deployment scripts, and its only other responsibility is injecting deployment tokens and credentials into the scripts as necessary.
Anyone else in the same boat as me?
I’d be curious to hear about projects where my approach would not work, if anyone is willing to share!
Edit: In no way does my approach to deployment reduce my appreciation for the efforts required to make a CICD pipeline happen. I’m just saying that in my experience, I don’t find most CICD platforms’ features to be necessary.
You’re not advocating against CI like the meme seems to be, but rather for CI builds to be runnable on human’s machines and the results should be same/similar as in when running w/in the CI system. Which is what CI folks want anyway.
Most of those things mentioned aren’t bona fide needs for me. Once a developer is deploying their project, they’re watching it go through the pipeline so they can quickly respond to issues and validate that everything in production looks good before they switch contexts to something else.
I see what you’re saying though, depending on what exactly is being deployed, the policies of your organization, and maybe expectations that developers are working in another context once they kick off a deployment, it could be necessary to have alerting like that. In that case it may be wise to flex some features of your CICD platform (or build a more robust script for deployment that can handle error alerting, which may or may not be worth it).
Real talk- I agree with this meme as truth.
The more and more I use CICD tools, the more I see value in scripting out my deployment with shell scripts and Dockerfiles that can be run anywhere, to include within a CICD tool.
This way, the CICD tool is merely a launch point for the aforementioned deployment scripts, and its only other responsibility is injecting deployment tokens and credentials into the scripts as necessary.
Anyone else in the same boat as me?
I’d be curious to hear about projects where my approach would not work, if anyone is willing to share!
Edit: In no way does my approach to deployment reduce my appreciation for the efforts required to make a CICD pipeline happen. I’m just saying that in my experience, I don’t find most CICD platforms’ features to be necessary.
You’re not advocating against CI like the meme seems to be, but rather for CI builds to be runnable on human’s machines and the results should be same/similar as in when running w/in the CI system. Which is what CI folks want anyway.
deleted by creator
Most of those things mentioned aren’t bona fide needs for me. Once a developer is deploying their project, they’re watching it go through the pipeline so they can quickly respond to issues and validate that everything in production looks good before they switch contexts to something else.
I see what you’re saying though, depending on what exactly is being deployed, the policies of your organization, and maybe expectations that developers are working in another context once they kick off a deployment, it could be necessary to have alerting like that. In that case it may be wise to flex some features of your CICD platform (or build a more robust script for deployment that can handle error alerting, which may or may not be worth it).
deleted by creator
Honestly, CI is only meaningful on bigger projects (more than 100 man-hours invested in total). So I most often go without.
But I do see its point.
Then you would probably enjoy concourse