Talk:DevOps/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not advert

Someone has complained this reads like an advert but it merely summarizes the field and its emerging characteristics, to the best of my ability (and one other contributor). Moreover, it doesn't advertise anyone or anything (although it does reference agile development methodology, other wiki and similar entries and makes heavy use of many independent bloggers). I don't see it. This poster merely slammed the article but didn't put anything up in the talk section to explain about why -- or how -- they consider it bad in tone or an advert. Christopher Little 18:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC) _______

Ok, I have removed the quote from one blogger that was the 2nd paragraph and tightened a lot of verbage so it is more straightforward, fact based and less POV. I will continue to improve this and have also asked various folks in the DevOps community -- bloggers and convention speakers -- to review and add to this to make it more encyclopedic. This is an emergent field which will be common parlance by this time next year; it's not an advert for a product or a company. Christopher Little 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

_______

I put back in the "tone" and "advert" as I removed them thinking I'd should do so with all the changes but decided it should probably be done by the original poster? Christopher Little 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

—————

This explanation of DevOps seems to assume that the need for agile development trumps the need for stability. Operational processes aren't in place because OPS want them per se, but because the business needs demand them. Therefore, the business needs to accept the increased risk of moving quickly. Once accepted at the top, DevOps can be implemented as a way of having Development teams work closer to Operational teams so changes are fully understood and operational problems are addressed by both the OPS & Dev teams concurrently. DevOps also allows Developers to better understand the operational problems caused by their proposed changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uslacker (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Concern over neutrality

I'll start with a caveat that the most qualified persons to talk about a subject are almost always dedicated practitioners. That's how one becomes an SME.

However, I feel the need to voice what is a minor concern for the neutrality of the article, given Mr. Little's employment as what I surmise to be a senior-level marketing resource for a company that specializes in DevOps. From his LinkedIn profile on 2 December 2010:

StreamStep software dovetails the gap between agile application development teams and enterprise operations teams ("bridging the DevOps gap"), accelerating enterprise application delivery and improving release quality. Our solution for bridging the DevOps gap: release planning, team coordination and self-service automation.

I'm glad that Mr. Little self-edited the material specifically on his company, but I'm still concerned that so much of this article is written and QC'ed by someone who's job is selling DevOps support and solutions. Wolfraem (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced assertions

The "Situation", "Needs", and "Release Coordinator" all have dozens of unreferenced assertions. It reads like marketing material. -- JSBillings 17:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

History

I think the article would benefit from a discussion of the topic's history. Some questions off the top of my head:

• Can its genesis be approximated?
  • Where did it originate?
  • When did it originate?
  • Who first discussed it?
  • Any papers or research?
• What is its current market penetration?
  • Who was its first evangelists?
  • Who are its biggest evangelists?
  • Are there any organizations (preferably not strict businesses) that promote DevOps?
  • How does it compare to other models hybrid / adapted / descended from Agile?

I'm explicitly not looking for self-advertising here, as the authors have done a fine job maintaining that neutrality. But the article suffers from time dilation: How old is DevOps? Six months? Two years? Ten years? Further, I get no sense of its penetration into IT, other than that it's known of enough for some sysadmin bloggers to have argued about it. Wolfraem (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

—————

I'm working on adding some history to the article. Ernest.mueller (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that DevOps is what some companies (Google/Apple/Twitter/DemonWare) have called "Site Reliability Engineers" or "Service Reliability Engineers" for six or seven years now. (note: I'm a Google SRE)

• http://michael-mccracken.net/2008/01/what-is-site-reliability-engineering-at-google/
• http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=63579
• http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs/11050/service-reliability-engineer-dublin-or-vancouver-demonware?campaign=List

BigValen (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DevOps vs devops

The objective of devops it's to grow interaction between dev and ops teams ... and for me uppercase first letter of dev and ops words it's a way of opposing a bit more.

I change all DevOps to devops to follow this line, but it's possible to rename page ? --ThomasClavier (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism not Supported by Reference

In the "Criticisms" section of the article, someone added: "Some in the IT blogging field have cited criticisms of the "Devops" label as just a primarily elitist sysadmin club to rebrand an existing problem" with a reference leading to: http://www.jedi.be/blog/2010/02/12/what-is-this-devops-thing-anyway/ But this link basically says that DevOps is not an elitist sysadmin club. Here are some quotes from the referenced blog post:

Is this just an elitist club? Some kind of rebranding exercise?

So the quote used as the basis of the criticism part of the article is actually a rhetorical question, which the author answers with a resounding 'no' later on.

Yes, there are some senior, experience, and talented people in the movement - but again, that's no surprise - the kind of sysadmin who is going to recognize the problem, care about fixing it, and have the combination of skills in terms of programming, systems and infrastructure and personal and management skills will by the very definition be a highly skilled and capable person. That’s not to be confused with elitist - the movement is friendly, welcoming, and open.

So if you’re feeling wary of the movement, or worried that you might not be accepted or fit in, don’t worry at all - if you’ve got a desire to change the world, hop on board.

If there really are some people leveling this criticism at DevOps, then we should reference them. Otherwise I think this part of "Criticims" should be removed. Onlynone (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the second criticism, that DevOps is a "marketing scheme to sell already well-understood methodologies" is also not supported by the reference. The blog post says that the DevOps people have *not* been capitalizing on the "craze" like the scrum people did with agile. I'm removing the Criticisms section since there's no supporting references. I'm not saying there aren't any valid criticisms of DevOps, it's just that the current ones aren't supported. Onlynone (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone reverted my removal of the Criticisms section. I came to the talk page expecting some sort of explanation, but there is none, and the issues with the section have not been addressed. I'm going to re-remove the section and leave a message on the user's talk page: User_talk:86.128.42.150. Onlynone (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully explained the reasons for the removal of the Criticisms section here on October 3rd. I waited two weeks and there was no further discussion, so I made the changes myself on October 17th. A month and a half later, with no discussion at all my edit was reverted on December 29th. I came here three days later. Upon finding that the revert had been made by an anonymous user with no explanation or discussion, I removed the section again. I left a note here and on the anon's talk page asking for discussion via the talk page. Four days after that, the anon reverted me again. Again there was no discussion here, but there was name calling in his edit summary. I'm going to seek the help of a third party as I don't want to get into an edit war. Onlynone (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to document this. I added another note to the user's talk page asking them to come here. I also sought advice from irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-help. There, SigmaWP advised me to wait for a response and if there was none, then remove the section again, and if the anon reverts me again, go to WP:DRN. This is what I plan to do. Onlynone (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2012

There is so much opinion and fallacy described in this article and underpinning the whole concept of DevOps, that it is difficult to document them all completely. A rebuttal of many of the contentions would be more appropriate. Any suggestions? For example, see the proposed correction below. The error to be corrected is a factual error.

Is: Change management is the infrastructure discipline for tracking all types of changes in the enterprise IT environment—including both application and infrastructure changes. Should Be: Change management is the ITIL-prescribed discipline for tracking infrastructure changes in the enterprise IT environment. Release Management is the ITIL-prescribed discipline for implementing applications in the enterprise IT environment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITIL#Overview_of_ITIL_v3

Wrmcnich (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

ITIL is UK specific. this article isn't about ITIL definitions Bhny (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You should probably also be more specific about what changes you want made. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

The link to the entry on Continuous Delivery is cased incorrectly, causing it to refer the reader to a non-existent page rather than the existing page on that topic.

Barnninny (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The article title actually had the wrong case. I fixed it Bhny (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

The first paragraphs should say: ... communication, collaboration and integration between software developers and Information Technology(IT) operations professionals.

Notice the word 'operations' is added before 'professionals' at the end of the sentence.

2.50.138.227 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Can you provide me with a reason for this? I checked Information technology and it refers to them as IT professionals, not IT operations professionals. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"IT Operations" and "IT Operations Personnel" are support staff, commonly referred to as System/Network/Database Administrators, and includes first line support such as Help Desk and the related functions. "IT Professionals" is a much wide and generic term, though commonly associated with Operations, it can also include Development and QA/Testing/Auditing (which are distinct Information Technology workers from Operations). 71.238.226.18 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012

I disagree that DevOps is a software development methodology. DevOps is an organizational structure and approach toward managing applications and data that is highly collaborative across engineering, QA, operations and security.

Jpmorgenthal (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This opinion is a symptom of the problem. DevOps is a marketing (neologism), it has no basis in actual computing roles. This person seems to think that DevOps is an organizational structure. Others think it's a methodology for running technology services. Others think it's the title of information workers who possess certain skills, or workers who are entrusted with certain responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.226.18 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Netflix NoOps discussion

Netflix uses DevOps technologies pretty heavily. There's a good post here about the process that they decided to go through when using DevOps for their development environments. Couldn't find a good way to summarize and implement, but some good information in this article.

• http://perfcap.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/ops-devops-and-noops-at-netflix.html

Additionally, this page could use more specifics on use and technologies (probably more than just a list). There's some good resources on the web as a emerging community. Shaded0 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• http://devops.com/
• https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#q=devops&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=Y4kJUe-YCuaP2gWp8YGABA&ved=0CI0BEKgC&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=4b19c8fad79212da&biw=1008&bih=615&ion=1
• http://dev2ops.org/2010/02/what-is-devops/
• http://groups.drupal.org/devops
• https://puppetlabs.com/solutions/devops/

Semi Protected

Since we appear to have an IP hopping editor (using a BT dynamic IP), with very strong NPOV adding negative non-referenced data, this page has been semi-protected. IP's wishing to edit this page should detail their edits here and prefix with {{Edit semi-protected}}, and someone will evaluate your request.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, when is it planned to stop semi-protecting this page? It's been more than 1 year for a not-so-critical subject, than sounds unfair and deters contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.176.192 (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This page is pure marketing

I'm not joking. I'm a user, not an editor. I never used DevOps, so I can't even tell if I like it. But I landed to this page exactly because I wanted to know that DevOps is. And still I don't know. The only thing I know is that all the persons who contributed this page are clearly marketing professionals who need to sell tools for DevOps. And this isn't an interesting information. I'll try to understand DevOps somewhere else, but please Wikipedia, delete this useless page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.20.214 (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this page

This whole page is a mess. I started trying to make sense of it, but it appears to be a collection of buzzwords and vaguely related statements. I can tell that the author is very enthusiastic about the term but after reading through it, I can't help but wonder why this page even needs to exist. It seems to be an internal group name for a collection of companies that focus on agile development. Perhaps it should be rewritten entirely, focusing on:

• What does the term "DevOps" mean?
• What role does it fill
• The type of environment DevOps maintain

-- JSBillings 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, it would be easier to rewrite this than to fix it. Unixtastic (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree. It doesn't offer a distillation of what DevOps, separate from other IT / Sofware Development trends. But more importantly it's nigh unintelligible. --Colin Barrett (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "Developers lack communicating configuration or environment changes necessary to run the updated code base. " mean? I don't understand the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.174.175.55 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It has no meaning. I removed it Bhny (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I figured out what it was supposed to mean, so I translated it and added it back: "Developers don't tell Operations what changes are necessary to run the updated code base." Bhny (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The diagram in the "Devops Impact on Application Releases" section shows ramps leading up to precipitous drops - all within an ongoing non-zero "change" function. This graph design is somewhat confusing. Is it meant to show some kind of burn-up? If so, then the Y-axis should probably be something like "functionality", not "change". If not, I would argue that the "change" function should stay level at zero until a sudden spike up and drop down; i.e., production code remains unchanged until the next release, which is usually relatively very quick in "time". This design pattern would apply to both the agile and waterfall graphs, and convey the apparently intended point. 4johnny (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The "See also" section should be relabeled to "Example products" and have more products add, for example Cfengine. Many other software products that support a DevOps process should be listed too. However I think you can see the mess that this will create, as people want to add their favorite tools, which will lead to the need to categorize the tools. So it would be better to remove the listing of products and tools and focus more on the *process* (not products) that relate to software development and deployment. Bruceraf (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Tools advertisement

Agree with points above to get rid of the tools in the "See also" section. This will turn into a marketing mess as every vendor wants to be there. For example, CFEngine's Mark Burgess was a cornerstone in the devops movement (infrastructure as code), but this product is not mentioned. Why? Did someone from the other products have rights to edit this page but CFEngine not? Xtreme2k (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Everyone "[has] rights to edit this page". Chef, Puppet, and Salt are obvious choices for articles that someone interested in DevOps should find interesting. Amazon Machine Image is a good choice as well, although the article there is kind of thin. If you think CFEngine is another good choice, just add it yourself. RossPatterson (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems not everyone has the right to edit this page. This article is semi-protected, so you have to have a userid of your own, and it has to be at least four days old and at least ten edits to other pages. But that's a pretty low bar to get over. RossPatterson (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2013

The goal is not "to automate as much as possible different operational processes." It is "to maximise the predictability, efficiency, security and maintainability of operational processes. This objective is very often supported by automation." Markosrendell (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Done RossPatterson (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2013

Please add an additional item to the see also list......

• Plutora Inc (Software)

Dalibor.siroky (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The product or company you mention does not appear to meet notability requirement for an article in its own right, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to include that additional item in the see also list. --HighKing (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2013

This page is terrible. I would like to be able to change that. What do I need to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleidea (talk • contribs) 00:35, 09 November 2013 (UTC)

You can request specific changes (i.e., "please change x to y) and, if they are deemed an improvement to the article, someone will make them. Or you can wait until you have a certain number of constructive edits under your belt and a little time has passed, at which point you will be able to make the changes yourself. Either way, thanks for your interest in improving the article. Rivertorch (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Awful description of DevOps. It does the DevOps movement no credit at all.

What is the point of locking a description of DevOps that really does no credit at all to the movement. I came to the page trying to find out more facts about DevOps. I read the 'advert' and left feeling that this was more of an evangelical movement than a way of releasing software. I'm an IT Pro. I've read Jez Humble's book. I know that there is more than froth to the movement. If someone is afraid of their beliefs and opinions being challenged, then they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If there is an alternative viewpoint, then let's hear it, in a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRMClarke (talk • contribs) 11:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 Feb 2014

Please correct the mangled sentence that reads, "Events can be more easily tracked as well as resolving documented process control and granular reporting issues."

Please also correct the garbled sentence that reads, "Simple processes become clearly articulating under DevOps."

Wow. I'm just a civilian and although I'd heard about the pissing matches that supposedly have the potential of ruining Wikipedia it wasn't until now that I'd seen any real sign of it. Unfortunately, this entry seems to be an example of the sort of harm that can result - it's constructed about as well as any of the overdue reports I slapped together in junior high. In other words, it's much poorer quality than most Wikipedia entries I've seen in the past, and I'm only talking about the basic mechanics of its contruction and ignoring whether it's actually correct. C'mon, folks - this is a shame.

Note: This page has been unprotected. Please make your changes, avoiding anything too controversial, which will lead to it being re-protected. Arjayay (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Poorly Written, Maybe Start Over

I have to wonder who the original author was. It seems obvious this person is not a native speaker of English, but believes he is fluent. He's not, sad to say. I keep running into bizarre word choice and misuse, like "simple processes become articulating ..."

It's also very unclear to an uninformed reader (which I am not, I should add) what exactly "DevOps" is. A job title? A defined methodology? A general approach? There are far too many vague sentences that read like they're written by someone who's spent years in a very large corporation speaking murky biz-speak:

"Simple processes become clearly articulated using a DevOps approach." (How? Why is this important? What kind of processes, anyway?)

"DevOps aids in software application release management for a company by standardizing development environments." (Says who? There is no formal "DevOps" specification, so I'm unconvinced. What's a "development environment", for the non-technical reader? Why is a standard dev environment part of DevOps, anyway? [Hint: I don't think it is.])

Why no mention of 12-factor apps, configuration management, infrastructure-as-code, or containerization, and why so little mention of infrastructure automation, a DevOps mainstay?

Maybe we should just start all over again. The article reads like it's written by someone who has no idea what DevOps actually is, and just parroted some buzzwords he'd overheard.

Steve Abatangle, March 6, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Area51org (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A heap of marketing buzzwords without contents

--195.212.29.188 (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

'See also'-section seems to be trolled

The current 'see also'-section contains only unrelated links to more or less exotic utility software and Amazon-Machine-Images(?!). It looks like the article was trolled. I suggest the removal of these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.67.20 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I Concur

I can't help but sympathise with the author below. He is absolutely right, this is complete gibberish!

How about "Events can be more easily tracked as well as resolving documented process control and granular reporting issues" WHAT??????

Never in the field of Wikipedia has so little been said with so many words. Dutchdavey (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad Article

Please cut out marketing and hero stuff from this article.. It foremost lacks a definition. --Marc van Woerkom (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit "Talk"

Hi everybody interested,

I'd propose to revise the talk section to the article or mark texts as obsolete which are talking about things which aren't in the article anymore. Just an example: Here's somebody writing about the "criticism" section but I don't find any criticism section in the article.

About the article itself: I agree with several comments that there's a lot of marketing inside. One really driving factor to the adoption of DevOps is missing: The lack of good operators (or in economical terms: The lack of experienced and cheap enough operators). Another one - but this is not citeable - is that a CIO can easier justify new development department employees for new applications because users do need them while operators usually are out of sight from the eyes of the users.

The other one is that I don't like the copy the marketing fluff. Just an example. "The emphasis is ... automation". Sorry, but this isn't news. After keeping things going this is the second most important topic on the "traditional" operations nowadays. Tools to warn the operator just in case of problems (like Nagios) are older than DevOps. "DevOps proposes a deliberate approach to selecting tools" is marketing fluff, too. They miss the point: You can select tools, if and only if you are given the time to select, install, test... This is a management decision which is completely out of focus of this article.

What is new is the better (formalized) connection between development and operation and that should be in the focus of the article.

Leuchuk (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Edit, April 2015

This article came up on the Special:PendingChanges list and that is when I noticed that it was tagged for an inadequate Lead. So I did a quick review of the article (and Talk page) and did a cleanup based on it existing content. I moved some content around, reorganized the sections, and created an Overview section with content from the body. But, NOTHING was removed. I will leave that up to someone more familiar with the subject, but hopefully the framework I have created will be more accommodating to edits and expansion in the future. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The definition of DevOps

From my point of view (having worked in the area for about 35 years), I think the page is too narrowly defined. The article sounds like DevOps was invented to support the Agile methodology. We were talking about DevOps long before I heard of Agile.

To me, DevOps is the collection of support services that undergird the development and testing efforts. Most people (outside the business) think of software development as a Dev Team and a Test Team. In reality, there are a lot of support functions going on - things like dev and test tools support, software configuration management, environment management (provisioning, inventory, scheduling, monitoring, retiring, etc), build/deploy to pre-prod environments, technical release management, defect/feature management, scope management - just to name a few.

IMHO, this is what should be described in an article about DevOps.

Regards, Kim.megahee (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Supporting developers is an operations responsibility. I think the problem here is that your using the meta-prefix "dev" to mean operators who support development. This makes these responsibilities no less operational. Further if a business has non-development personnel, operations who support the various groups don't get special meta-prefixes for ProdOps (Production Operations, AdminOps (Administrative Ops), etc.

The whole idea of DevOps is nebulous because it's marketing BS, just like the term "Cloud" applies to technologies that existed long before the markers conceived that angle, DevOps is a marketing construction for roles that validly exist under different names.

71.238.226.18 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think some of this misses the point. DevOps isn't about software development at all. It's about software development, validation, delivery, and improvement, a lifecycle which requires effort both on the part of traditional software developers and on the part of IT operations people, who must provide fairly specialized automation, tooling, and infrastructure to support this. DevOps is a set of behaviors; those behaviors are enabled by technologies. If IT exists to provide services and applications to users (and it does), then DevOps is the specific management approach to doing so, "management" being used in a broad sense. DevOps is not a collection of support services; it is a deliberate collaboration between developers, operations, and users. DevOps is not marketing BS, it is a philosophy. Although nascent in comparison, it is not dissimilar to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). It is a set of approaches which the industry agrees are generally a Good Idea, but the approaches themselves do not include a concrete implementation, which is why people think it's vague. This is not "operators who support development," because DevOps also calls for a change in development practices. It isn't "developers who are responsible for operations," because there's clearly a role for operations to provide infrastructure to support the desired behaviors. There is absolutely no way to look at a traditional "gated" organization - where developers "turn code over" for testing, and Test in turn "releases code to production," whereupon it becomes Operation's job to deploy it - and call any of that "DevOps." DevOps means everyone *actually working as a team* to smooth the continual release of quality code into production with as little manual intervention as possible, based on the organization's needs.

If there's a one-sentence (or two-) definition, it's something like, "DevOps is an information technology management approach that seeks to integrate software development, testing, deployment, and user feedback into a highly automated lifecycle for delivering applications and services to their users. DevOps as a philosophy defines certain behaviors and practices, which must then be implemented by a close collaboration between the entire IT team, management, and end users." 71.55.122.237 (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is this article?

It describes in great detail how DevOps is literally Jesus yet after reading it I still have no fucking clue what it *is* — Kallikanzarid^talk 23:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

'measurement of cooperation' = ???

Hi There,

What does the 'measurement of cooperation' at the beginning of the Overwiev in this sentence:
"DevOps is a software development method that emphasizes communication, collaboration (information sharing and web service usage), integration, automation, and measurement of cooperation between software developers and other IT professionals."

Or should I interpret it like: "...a software development method (that blablabla) of cooperation between..."?

Thanks for the clarification in advance.

Ani76 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

Editors, could you please have a more detailed explanation on the rejection of the criticism section? Lets be constructive, all the quotes and data in that section have valid sources. I think it is important for practitioners to understand some of the pitfalls of the DevOps approach. Spelling is corrected now, and I am prepared to polish the rest of the content. How? Thank you in advance. (I wish to thank the editors for being level headed in accepting the current criticism kernel, perhaps it should be renamed challenges or something to that effect, I have no current opinion on the best terminology. The essence imo is to disambiguate between computer science / engineering and organizational issues.)

This section provides an important aspect needed in the article. However, it mainly sites one individual’s opinion which is too narrow to base the whole section on, the source itself is basically a secondary source and the comment on the blog post show that his opinion is widely controversial and does not present a Neutral Point of view and is bias. Additionally, he’s not using the stated definition of DevOps basically providing a strawman defense – changing the definition and tearing it down. The final point of the sections is really important - it’s attempting to make the point of DevOps washing which should have a place in this article. I reverted the edit based on the quality of the main source. This sections needs to be greatly reworked, including proper sources and quality citation. -- Kharnagy (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think he needs to meet NPOV? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Technology operations" undefined

The Venn diagram presents the term "Technology operations" which I cannot find defined on the page, nor linked in. I'd suggest to remove the Venn diagram or define "Technology operations". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.74.16.206 (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Kharnagy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Benefits of DevOps: incorrect references

The benefits of DevOps contains two references (22 and 23). The actual source of 22 contains a list of DevOps practices and does not include any description of benefits of DevOps nor proof that there are any. The actual source of 23 does describe benefits, but not of DevOps but instead of Continuous Delivery, which is a different concept (as explained in the section "Relationship to agile and continuous delivery" of the DevOps article).

I'm not aware of any articles actually proving any benefits of implementing DevOps. Most articles claiming to do so actually confuse continuous delivery with DevOps, and cite major benefits received from implementing (continuous) delivery tooling rather than the organizational and cultural change that is DevOps.

Can anyone find any actual sources proving the described benefits of DevOps and if not what needs to happen with this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.238.53 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"Predictive and forecasting of critical components and auto recovery"

I think the devops and autorecovery mechanism with the predicatable disaster is the future development trend and wanted the authors to think along those lines. Presently realtime,continously integration, monitoring are all existing for more then couple of years. Hence the real change is automated real time recoverable scenarios which i havent seen anyone thinking or developing it.

 Not done. Wikipedia is not for original research.--greenrd (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

DevOps Toolchain

Systems development STARTS with coding?

No problem definition? No analysis? No budget reviews? No project planning? Just jump right into coding?

Fixed - I've clarified that those "steps" aren't the entire systems development process. (Nor are they really waterfall-style steps, but that's another story.)--greenrd (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things

Ugh. I have been a 'computer guy' involved in all aspects of software development and delivery for more than thirty years. I went to look up what another article meant by "is targeted to fit into a 'DevOps' methodology". That sent me to the DevOps article where I quickly thought that it looked like advertising. That caused me to look at the talk page to see if others have had the same impression. It seems they have. As I write this (2017-04-19), the article still looks like a bunch of marketing types wrote it. It seems as though somebody has coined a neologism to bundle together a few things they don't really understand. Perhaps I am just old and cranky, but I think that gratuitous lingo like 'DevOps' interferes with people learning their craft. It properly belongs in Wikipedia, IMO, because it is actually in use. However, it would be nice if it just stuck with what little facts surround it. I would be interested in when, how and why it was originally coined. I was tempted to coin some new idiotic term for what has happened here in order to illustrate how absurd it all is, but I stopped short because of the possibility that my coinage would become yet another obscure term. Language evolves through usage and since 'DevOps' is in use, I guess we are stuck with it. Hopefully, others will, like me, turn to the talk page to gain some perspective. Abstraction is good, but I would prefer it be done by people who understand closer to the metal. What ultimately led me here: I just finished spending a day configuring and compiling modern software that implements an old RFC. It takes more than 150,000 lines of code, in more than 8,000 (sic) files using more than one language to implement the client only. Older code, written in C, takes one ~500 line program for the client and one ~650 line program for the server. The newer code implements more function, but at a horrendous cost, and in a typical forest/trees breakdown the new code is dysfunctional due to a critical security flaw. I was rebuilding the new thing from source to take a look at repairing the flaw. The flaw would not be there, had the author spent more time actually understanding the important bits of his craft, rather than learning corporate buzz-speak. </soapbox> DeepNorth (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Broken Link in references

The reference by Jennifer Ellard is a 404 Psmagunia (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"While DevOps reflects complex topics, the DevOps community uses memes to communicate important concepts"

IMHO this is awkward and misleading. It should be rewritten or removed because all you're doing is tacking on summary data or summary concepts that vaguely connect with the topic of culture change. I think it can be filed under it's how subheading. Maybe the intent was to gather a list of more granular subtopics of DevOps.

Sp00nfeeder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's one of many sections I'm planning to improve. The word should be "analogies", not memes; but the entire thing needs to be re-written. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What is DevOps?

Most all my changes have been reverted.

I still don't know what you think DevOps even is? It must be more than a philosophy that emphasizes communication. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to improve the IT Operations article first; I'll be back here next week. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

on DevOps as a job title

I think this topic can be a subsection on it's own because it's probably the #2 (#1 being the exact definition of DevOps) DevOps-related issue. That said, I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing, so I'm not sure how historically you handle grey areas for an evolving topic. I'm not even sure if this topic is evolving in 2017 - maybe it has settled? Adam Jacob has said he's backed off caring about the issue. I'd rather cite someone like that that random internet publishers who want views. Sp00nfeeder (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My (personal, unsourced) sense is that the industry trend is away from having DevOps as a specific job title, and towards having it as a team-wide philosophy. However, until I'm done editing the IT Operations article, it's very difficult for me to define DevOps well enough to improve this article. I've added an equivocal section; hopefully better references will be added to it. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DevOps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611073000/http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/20071026/10000120-1.html to http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/20071026/10000120-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A useless statistic?

"However, a study released in January 2017 by F5 of almost 2,200 IT executives and industry professionals found that only one in five surveyed think DevOps had a strategic impact on their organization despite rise in usage."

Does this mean anything at all? Maybe the four in five who found it had no significant impact were the ones who had done almost nothing with these ideas. We in fact know of the giant acceleration in release rates being achieved by places like Amazon and Netflix using these principles. Is it really significant that the CIO of Stodgy Old Dinosaur Corporation sees no benefit in the ideas? GeneCallahan (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Criticism?

I'm surprised this article does not have a "Critical" section, common to most other technology-related articles. I've heard anecdotal arguments that DevOps dilutes the specific skills of many engineers and teams, for example, and its implementation without defining responsibilities can cause organizational friction and lower productivity. Example - https://dzone.com/articles/devops-isnt-killing-developers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.112.98 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? There is no critism to be heard. This is why the article has protected status. No cult here. Move along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.208.102 (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this have a NPV flag?

"This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)"

Came to talk section to find an explanation for the tag, but can't find one. Reading the article as it is at the moment, I would not consider this to be written like an advertisement. It might need better sourcing or some criticisms, but not sure what or where. Can anyone explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.154.213.183 (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking it over, it seems that some of the content might be unnecessary and serve primarily to promote DevOps, but as a non-expert, it's hard for me to say for sure. I'd ask someone at WikiProject Software what they think. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. In absence of any reasoned defense for adding advert tag to article (after several months now), I am removing it.  Done

The sections "Views on the benefits claimed for DevOps" and "Cultural change" could use more development. Like almost all other software engineering and software development methodology articles (see links in article's Info sidebar), this article could use more such summaries of the challenges and criticisms published in reliable sources - not self-published blog entries. Finding good sources for such is not difficult: a "criticisms of x" search works. The challenge is finding just a few of the very best that cover the key issues - e.g., Dev vs. Ops culture conflicts, workflow habits, complexity, costs of retooling and training, integrating COTS info VC - objectively and factually. Filter out self-published blogs with no external editorial oversight, as those unvetted opinion pieces are a dime a dozen and violate Wikipedia content guidelines. Still a lot out there for anyone to improve this article. Also, many of the now standard DevOps books address some of these issues head on. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)