Talk:DevOps

DevOps is Culture

This article is a joke, right from the very first poorly written paragraph. DevOps is culture, period. Whomever wrote it is totally confused about the difference between Agile and DevOps, particularly when DevOps as a practice can and is widely used in both Agile and Waterfall environments. It should be completely rewritten by someone who knows what they are talking about. Flybd5 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agile represents a change in thinking, whereas DevOps actually implements organizational cultural change.[15]

This does not make sense and needs to be reviewed with a close reading of the source. A change in thinking is cultural change.

The article is in IT management speak, and needs to define terms to meet the needs of the general wikipedia audience.

The article is missing the business facilitation aspects of DevOps from which all the technical aspects, such as CICD, stem. For example; managing the four types of work, the 'three ways' of collaboration, and DevOps' basis in manufacturing and team function study. To state that the article is locked or beyond criticism is not rational. Regardless of which elements of this have worked their way into agile methodologies, (of which there are almost countless varieties), I cannot see how a person can understand DevOps without the underlying principles explained.

DevOps or Devops ?

I came here to Wikipedia to look for a definitive answer. I first reviewed Portmanteau and List_of_portmanteaus and I did not see a single example of a portmanteau that has this sort of camelcase format. I thought I was validated in my understanding that the proper spelling is "devops". The list of List_of_portmanteaus it is listed under section Internet and computing as "devops"

I click the link and I'm brought to here where the page is named "DevOps". What the heck ?

Gbonk (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DevOps is near universal across the literature. WP will of course apply its dogmmatic naming rules and change this to "Devops" before long, despite any external sourcing. See PaaS, SaaS et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley If I understand WP title conventions, camelcase is frowned upon, but less so for separating words as in this case. My understanding is not clear about the competing follow the sources/commonname vs don't rely on domain experts for spelling. I'd just keep it as is. Those acronyms also seem fine to me as camel, and I agree about the articles being lowercase, which is how they've evolved. E.g. I just moved Infrastructure as Code to Infrastructure as code, but the acro IaS seems fine. This seems inconsistent, but livable? Widefox; talk 15:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Capitalise, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Capitalisation in DevOps terms?. "Infrastructure as code" is a pure wikineologism and it is not WP's role to invent such. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Don’t Believe These Myths About DevOps on Cloud

DevOps as a job title

Even as a software developer, I don't understand what the section wants to explain about DevOps as a job title. It is clearly a topic worth mentioning but I don't see how the article answers the question what such job title represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB05:4AE:F500:1091:75DE:9C49:FBF6 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'm looking for jobs in the software development field and see the title 'DevOps' all the time, and after reading this page i am still completely clueless as to what it means. Grimdark (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The section about the job title is in response to the people who say "DevOps is culture, period." (see above) This would be fine if it were 2009 and you hung out at the Ghent DevOps Days. In 2020, the battle has been lost! DevOps is both about tools and culture and is a widespread job title: https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=devops For people who want to fight an unwinnable battle, then contact each hiring manager for each current DevOps job posting and correct them.Sp00nfeeder (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2020 (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)

Bad prose

"They are well communicated and collaborated internally"

That sentence does not make sense. GeneCallahan (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I updated this sentence in the article based statements in one of the cited publications (Chen 2018) to read: "Improved collaboration and communication both between and within organizational teams...". However, I don't have access to the other reference (Chen 2015), so it's possible I'm missing some of the original intent, but at least it's more intelligible now. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Not precise

I leave the article more confused than I was going in. I'm not sure why this is, but I learnt from my friend in the position that it is essentially "SysAdmins who do coding". I think this is a more precise definition than what the lead sentence tries to express.

The article seems to be full of corporate-speak and doesn't fulfill the purpose of enlightening the reader about what DevOps actually is, instead of encouraging people to adopt the practice. Mount2010 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article is very confusing, and is written more like a academic research paper (lots of name drops of researchers). I came here as an engineer from a non-software field. I don't know what DevSecOps is other than "it has something to do with software development" and "managers think it is important". At least with the amount of time I was prepared to invest reading the article, I still don't know what DevSecOps is other than it has something to do with software development and people think it is important. Actually I have a new takeaway, which is that industry and the people who use this word don't agree what it means either. Needs to be tightened with more effective summary sections. 149.32.192.35 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of large sections

@Barbinary: Your edit summary didn't make clear why you removed several sections entirely earlier today.[1]

Was this intentional? If it was, what was the rationale for removing them? Was it purely removing material from unreliable sources?

This is what the table of contents used to look like and what it looks like after the edit:

Old and new tables of contents

Old: 1 Definition 2 History 3 Toolchains 4 Relationship to other approaches 4.1 Agile 4.2 ArchOps 4.3 TestOps 4.4 Continuous delivery 4.5 DataOps 4.6 Site-reliability engineering 4.7 Systems administration 4.8 WinOps 4.9 Toyota production system, lean thinking, kaizen 4.10 DevSecOps, Shifting Security Left 5 Goals 6 Criticism 7 Cultural change 7.1 DevOps as a job title 7.2 Building a DevOps culture 8 Deployment 8.1 Architecturally significant requirements 8.2 Microservices 8.3 DevOps automation 9 Adoption 9.1 DevOps practices and adoption 10 See also 11 Notes 12 References 13 Further reading New: 1 Definitions and History 2 DevOps toolchain 3 Relationship to other approaches 3.1 Agile 3.2 Continuous delivery 3.3 DataOps 3.4 Site reliability engineering 3.5 Systems administration 4 Goals 4.1 Views on the benefits claimed for DevOps 5 Cultural change 5.1 DevOps as a job title 5.2 Building a DevOps culture 6 Deployment 7 DevOps and architecture 8 Scope of adoption 9 DevOps Transformation 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)