Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Some people using manual tagging as a mechanism to communicate something to CI as you suggest, but others let CI tag successful builds. When I re-did my team's CI a few years ago I chose the latter because it creates less friction for continuous deployment -- every commit which passes the tests automatically becomes a deployable artifact with a monotonically increasing build number which can be tracked across SCM, CI, and deployment.


Why not use the sha as the build identifier across SCM, CI and deployment? It exists already.


Heh, you've never worked with a project/product manager, have you? "Yes, ma'am, version 1b6411f has been deployed successfully. Now I just need to edit the pom and bump the version to 2e1080d"


Good point, but if you bump the version yourself why not set a tag?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: