Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • 2
    Besides, only successful builds should trigger a creation of a "build drop" that could be deployed. If a build fails, there should be no deployable build drop, so there should be no risk that someone will publish bad code to clients. Commented Aug 28, 2015 at 11:47
  • 1
    there is definitely another option that is used and better than this one I think and in heavy use(we use it at twitter). don't put failed builds on master AND silly mistakes are easy to fix still as well. See my full answer below. Commented Sep 30, 2016 at 1:00
  • "an automated tool to change code on your behalf, there is the risk that it will get it wrong" -- This is substantially less dangerous than anything that is done by a human. The goal should be full automatization for the CI/CD process. Commented Apr 30, 2024 at 11:52