[LRUG] Continuous * (Happy New Year!)
Samuel Joseph
tansaku at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 01:45:09 PST 2019
Big thanks to everyone for their input on this discussion. In an effort
to try and wrap up, let me pull together threads from the last few
emails, rather than replying to each individually.
Gareth, okay, so "deploy master to staging and then to production", and
"don't merge develop into master until you're sure there will be no more
hotfixes, and you also merge hotfixes back into develop as soon as
possible".
I don't know there's any mechanism to ever ensure there would never be a
hotfix, in that staging can't perfectly production in terms of sending
real emails, social media messages to real users etc., but yes of
course, merge hotfixes back ASAP - as we currently do from production ->
staging -> develop branches in our setup.
Gareth wrote:
> the original core of your question, this is a simple answer. Once your
> manual tests are complete, this is exactly what the "promote" button
> (or equivalent cli command) does. It reduces the manual part of the
> deploy process down to a single button click, which I think is what
> you wanted from the start of this conversation.
I'm not sure that's what I wanted. I can do `git rebase staging`, `git
push origin master` on my command line to achieve the same effect, and I
could make that a script or hook it up to a button if I wanted, but
that's not my problem. The problem is that I have to initiate a
production deploy at all; and I particularly don't want to have to
remember to do it and them remember to come back and check the results
later on. I guess the heroku "promote" button is useful in this regard
in that it does not kick off any tests, or do a lengthy deploy process -
it gets the code up much faster (but assumes staging server on master
branch, as you suggest) - I'll need to measure that and see ...
What I really want is to not have to remember to come and do a
production deploy every week, and I also want it to be atomic, i.e. not
kick it off in the morning and come back in an hour or two to see if it
worked. I'm trying to deal with my unreliable memory, emotional
exhaustion etc. I'd like to know that a production deploy will happen
every week (on wednesdays say) and that I will have to get my act
together on Tuesday to check for any reasons to stop the deploy.
So I wonder if heroku (and other CI systems) allow automated promotion
on particular dates ... which leads me to Sasha's email:
Sasha wrote:
> If you haven't already seen
> https://www.spinnaker.io/guides/user/pipeline/managing-pipelines/ then
> I highly recommend looking over Spinnaker as I believe it will help
> cover the steps you've outlined as missing in providers like AWS,
> Heroku, etc.
thanks for the recommendation Sasha, reading through I see pipeline
triggers can be cron jobs, so indeed one could set things up to
automatically promote to production on Wednesdays, or similar. And
indeed I could stick with our current develop/staging/master branch
model and put the `git rebase` operations into the cron jobs. It sounds
like we might be alone if we do something like that - from the replies
on the list is sounds like the common pattern is using develop/master
and the staging server is on master as well, and it sounds like most
folks have to remember to take some manual step to trigger a production
deploy at some frequency.
I wonder if anyone anywhere in the world is doing automated deploys to
production on particular days of the week ...?
Mark wrote:
> You probably also want a strategy for giving you back the confidence
> of being able to know what is on prod/staging at any point.
At the moment we have full confidence of what is on prod/staging at any
point. I'd argue that with the staging server/branch and
production/master server/branch model anyone can instantly browse
exactly what we have on prod/staging via GitHub, facilitating a much
more open development than if the only way to see what's on those
servers is through an interface like Herokus, which is not visible to
just anyone.
https://github.com/AgileVentures/WebsiteOne/tree/staging
https://github.com/AgileVentures/WebsiteOne/tree/master
but does sound like we're the only folks in the LRUG sphere with this
model ...
Gareth wrote:
> I don't think the environment branches are needed in your setup, and
> they're a legacy of a different workflow.
I think they offer some advantages that I've outlined, and I was the one
that originally implemented that workflow based on what some folks in
the states were recommending - I wonder if there are books that get into
the nitty/gritty of all this, or if this is still all just shared
informal practices spread across different groups around the world ...
Huge thanks to everyone for participating in this discussion. I've
learnt a great deal, although I'm still not sure if I'll be able to use
the terms "continuous deployment" and "continuous delivery" without
causing confusion or being confused :-) but I've got lots to experiment
with and that was my key objective.
Best, Sam
On 09/01/2019 10:42, Gareth Adams wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, 10:08 Samuel Joseph <tansaku at gmail.com
> <mailto:tansaku at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess we could be deploying to both staging and production from
> the master branch, but by having the separate develop, staging and
> production branches, that each auto-deploy to the three servers,
> it means that we've got a clear place to go (locally and in
> GitHub) to see a running version of whatever is on each of those
> three branches
>
> In the workflow I think you're describing, the "clear place to go"
> should be your CD tool - in this case the Heroku pipeline - rather
> than your source code repository. But there are definitely nuances,
> and if getting that info back into your repo is important then maybe
> I'm simplifying too much.
>
> and if for some reason production has a weird issues and we have
> to hot fix (fairly rare) then we have the staging branch to do it
> on, safe in the knowledge that a hot-fix applied to staging can be
> auto-deployed to the staging server, and won't accidentally make
> thngs worse on production (which is of course auto-deployed off
> master).
>
> I'll rephrase what I wrote in my last email to:
>
> …you instead think "deploy master to staging *and then* to production".
>
> In this workflow, there's no such thing as a "hotfix to staging", just
> a new commit to master, which follows the same "master ➡️ staging ➡️
> production" process. Note this means you don't merge develop into
> master until you're sure there will be no more hotfixes, and you also
> merge hotfixes back into develop as soon as possible.
>
> But then, does no one do any manual tests on staging before
> there's a deploy to production? What's the trigger that says it's
> okay to deploy to production following a staging deploy?
>
> And now we've circled around to the original core of your question,
> this is a simple answer. Once your manual tests are complete, this is
> exactly what the "promote" button (or equivalent cli command) does. It
> reduces the manual part of the deploy process down to a single button
> click, which I think is what you wanted from the start of this
> conversation.
>
>
> On 08/01/2019 11:19, Matthias Berth wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>>
>> Why are you rebasing in the first place?
>> Can't you just make a feature branch off master, then merge it
>> back into master? And deploy to staging and production from the
>> master branch?
>>
>> I also wonder why your 20 minutes sanity checks cannot be
>> automated. Are you doing something new / creative every time you
>> do these tests?
>> Great discussion!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:48 AM Gareth Adams <g at rethada.ms
>> <mailto:g at rethada.ms>> wrote:
>>
>> Sam, I don't have a grand answer to your whole question, but
>> a phrase leapt out at me and I wanted to flag it:
>>
>> > rebasing along the pipeline
>>
>> To me, this suggests the code on your staging branch is not
>> the same as the code you end up deploying to production (and
>> it might not be the same as the code in your master branch)
>>
>> I guess there are a few reasons that could be: you're storing
>> some environment-specific configuration on your environment
>> branches, and can't merge them all together, or maybe your
>> environment branches contain a different combination of
>> feature branches that you're trying to keep control of?
>>
>> Either way, I'd consider how (or if) you could change your
>> workflow to make sure you deploy the same code everywhere (or
>> at least deploy the same code to production that you deploy
>> to staging). That's the basis behind e.g. Heroku pipelines'
>> "Promote" button and it's the pattern I commonly see now
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, 10:13 Samuel Joseph <tansaku at gmail.com
>> <mailto:tansaku at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gerhard,
>>
>> On 07/01/2019 12:00, Gerhard Lazu wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>> What determines that a build can go from your
>>> development environment into staging?
>> Good question, the answer is:
>>
>> 1) that all the unit, integration and acceptance tests pass
>> 2) that there are no merge conflicts
>> 3) that the manual sanity checks on develop are coming
>> back okay
>>> And from staging into production? If you can capture
>>> this in code, you can put it into a pipeline.
>>>
>> I don't think there's any way we can remove the manual
>> sanity checks as the acceptance tests are just not that
>> reliable, and although we've poured 1000's of hours into
>> them and ultimately I can't see any way of making them
>> perfect.
>>
>> I didn't think the presence of a manual step would
>> prevent us using a pipeline, in as much as I thought of a
>> pipeline as just being a series of servers with matching
>> branches and code is them moved along them whether
>> manually or automatically. Heroku calls such things
>> pipelines and seems to have no support for automatically
>> moving code along them, it's purely manual from what I
>> can see.
>>>
>>> Why do you have 3 pipelines?
>>
>> I don't think we do. As I understand it, we have one
>> pipeline:
>>
>> develop branch + develop server ---> staging branch +
>> staging server ---> master branch + production server
>>
>> That's three paired branches/servers in one pipeline.
>> Here's a screenshot of how Heroku presents our pipeline
>> in their pipeline interface. Note the button "Promote to
>> staging" which allows you to manually move the code on
>> the develop server to the staging server, but doesn't
>> actually do a rebase of the code from develop branch to
>> staging:
>>
>>> Based on the questions that you're asking, I believe
>>> that it would help if you had a single pipeline.
>> I agree - I think we do, but perhaps I'm wrong ...
>>> The question that I would focus on is /What would it
>>> take to have a single pipeline that has an end-goal of
>>> creating production builds/? Here is a pipeline example
>>> which stops after it publishes a Docker image:
>>> changelog.com, CircleCI
>>> <https://circleci.com/workflow-run/065467ef-87c0-4f5e-a2ab-5e11be12403f>.
>> Ooh, thanks for sharing! I had to log in to CircleCI to
>> see that:
>>
>> but that looks really interesting.
>>> If you are using something like Docker Swarm or
>>> Kubernetes, the platform/ecosystem has all the necessary
>>> tools to keep deployment concerns self-contained. In the
>>> changelog.com <http://changelog.com> case, the Docker
>>> stack that captures the entire deployment has an update
>>> component that is responsible for app updates
>>> <https://github.com/thechangelog/changelog.com/blob/cf2ebe0de0f35c96bf664b8bc9183bd1f3468565/docker/changelog.stack.yml#L15-L31>.
>>> In this specific case, if the new app version starts and
>>> is healthy for 30 seconds, it gets automatically
>>> promoted to live. We have been using a similar approach
>>> since October 2016 <http://changelog.com/podcast/254>, a
>>> Docker stack just makes it easier.
>>>
>>> I want to spur your imagination by sharing the pipeline
>>> that is responsible for RabbitMQ v3.7.x
>>> <https://ci.rabbitmq.com/teams/main/pipelines/server-release:v3.7.x>.
>>> This pipeline captures what is possible if imagination
>>> is set free:
>> Wow, that RabbitMQ pipeline looks amazing - and I've only
>> captured part of it in the screenshot:
>>
>>>
>>> * tests & builds 30+ apps...
>>> * on all supported major runtime version...
>>> * and all supported OSes
>>> * tests upgrades
>>> * tests client support
>>> * releases alphas, betas, RCs & GAs
>>> * and publishes to all supported distribution channels
>>>
>>> I hope this helps, Gerhard.
>>
>> That's extremely helpful - thankyou!
>>
>> But so just to be clear, there is something in these
>> pipelines that you're sharing that regularly moves code
>> from one branch to another? And that's something that
>> CircleCI and RabbitMQ provide? Or these are pipelines
>> where the same code in the same branch is being moved
>> through a series of servers, based on tests and checks
>> passing at each server?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance
>> Best, Sam
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org <mailto:Chat at lists.lrug.org>
>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>> Manage your subscription:
>> http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org <mailto:Chat at lists.lrug.org>
>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>> Manage your subscription:
>> http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org <mailto:Chat at lists.lrug.org>
>> Archives:http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>> Manage your subscription:http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>> List info:http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org <mailto:Chat at lists.lrug.org>
> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
> Manage your subscription:
> http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20190116/254697b5/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Chat
mailing list