
Continuous Integration is Dead - yegor256a
http://www.yegor256.com/2014/10/08/continuous-integration-is-dead.html
======
jonaldomo
One of my most popular blog posts (by a long shot) ended with the words "is
dying" [http://jmoses.co/2013/12/21/is-ruby-
dying.html](http://jmoses.co/2013/12/21/is-ruby-dying.html). I love figuring
out ways to get people to click on my articles.

With that said, we also do a read only branch called stable that we only push
to once unstable gets the OK in Jenkins. I would not say that it is dead, but
just an extra safe guard. I do appreciate that book recommendation on
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321601912/](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321601912/)
I have not heard of that before.

~~~
bubble_boi
You really should be starting your titles with 'why', for that extra punch.

------
Lukerhys
I find your post rather interesting. I do have a question however, Why not
using a code review system like gerrit and verify every patchset by the
continuous integration server?

~~~
yegor256a
Well, you can have Gerrit (or something similar), but this won't solve the
main problem - your master branch will eventually get broken. Developers will
push their because they CAN. Some of the code will pass code reviews and will
be merged automatically. But sometimes (very often) they will commit and push
directly to master. And you will get your build into "broken" state. And it
will stay their for days.

------
OlliPee
Very interesting post there, I use Continuous integration for my project too.
Even though it is time consuming, it is still a better and a reliable way to
get it done.

------
Roughrichy
I would say that if it is the case of master, then it should be deployable. I
may be wrong but that is what I believe, also I would stick to continuously
deploy.

