October 9, 2020 at 12:00 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item What's the Lunch Factor?
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
October 9, 2020 at 2:34 am
From the Article:
...Microsoft does, as do lots of organizations trying to embrace DevOps and produce higher quality...
Ok... you caused me to blow a pork chop bone out of my nose while I was reading this. Look at Pivot, Format, String_Split, String_Escape, DATEDIFF and DATEADD (basically zero ISO support), CONVERT (no support for durations/periods or thousands separators for whole numbers), DECIMAL math (4 function calculator works better), DATEDIFF_BIG (a "Fix" for the mistake they made on the newer temporal datatypes instead of fixing the original problem), XML as a whole (hole is a better term), Partitioned Tables, Recursive CTEs, INSTEAD OF Triggers, CEIP (total invasion of company and personal privacy), SSRS, SSIS, script generation (they have code that does it but we can't execute it), xp_ and sp_ objects, Creating EOM with no FOM, no sequence generator (fnTally type) even after 11 years, an ISO date format that isn't right for certain languages, broken newer temporal datatypes that no longer meet ISO standards, the changes in SSMS since it became a separate product, DBCC SHRINKFILE, Index REORGANIZE, usage examples in MS Docs, safety in SP and CU releases, HierarchyID, the mess they made by defaulting LOBs to in-row in 2005, deprecation of useful features just because they no longer want to support them, lack of support of useful built-in features because they don't want to support them, Fast Inserts, the Cardinality Estimator "improvement", GUIDs that are no longer globally unique, etc, etc, etc, and understand why I had such a gut wrenching and violent laugh at that comment. And don't get me started on O-365, or what they did to Visio and that whole.
--Jeff Moden
October 9, 2020 at 11:20 am
We are a financial institution with an entire universe of change controls and procedures. Each change has at least three levels of human approval and, for changes with wide impact, a review board of 7-8 more human beings.
We’re working to embrace CI/CD, but it’s going to be a bumpy road to get there. The current proposed automation model involves the product owner. Embracing change in a traditional 160-year-old institution will take a lot of work, but the shift has begun.
You can bet your last dollar we’re not going to let developers deploy to production without even one approval gateway. That’s a non-starter.
October 9, 2020 at 12:34 pm
Where I work the Lunch Factor is high. I think it's seven, but it might be 8 or 9. (I'm not sure what the number is now as I've not been to a meeting in months. It seems like they add a new voting member periodically.) We have a change management request board which holds an inordinate amount of power over the process. It's not just to production that approval to from the CMRB must be granted, it's also to test that approval must be granted. In fact, people are leaving because of this top heavy, absolute power board.
Feature flags, man I wish we used them.
I don't believe we are bound by Sarbannes-Oxley.
The CMRB gets involved in everything. They only meet once a week, on Monday.
Your last sentence, "... think if you could reduce that number". HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! Thank you, I really needed that laugh.
Rod
October 9, 2020 at 1:18 pm
For those complaining about review boards... despite the pain they seem to bring, I found that such "heavy handed" review boards are a thousand times better than having a "cowboy" environment where anyone can deploy anything any time that they want.
--Jeff Moden
October 11, 2020 at 4:27 pm
I'm not advocating for a freewheeling, anyone does whatever they want to do environment, either.
Rod
October 11, 2020 at 6:30 pm
I'm not advocating for a freewheeling, anyone does whatever they want to do environment, either.
Totally understood. You have a heavy handed review board that seems to have gone over the top and that's what you were talking about. They're too heavy handed.
Just to make sure that I'm not trying to start a fight on this subject, I don't care for over-the-top review boards, either. There's needs to be some benefit other than being the "no" box or being the source of interminable waits. I just wanted people to know that as horrible as that can be and is, I'd happily accept and even embrace one as the lesser of the two evils since I've worked in both types (over-the-top and none at all) of environments (sometimes even within the same company). Too many people believe that such boards and the review process are totally unnecessary and didn't want people to walk away thinking that's correct thinking.
--Jeff Moden
October 12, 2020 at 12:48 am
Good points, Jeff.
Rod
October 12, 2020 at 3:49 pm
My lunch factor is 1, but can go up to 2 or more depending on the risk of the change. I advise that approvals and the promotion process itself should be based on a rational review of requirements. If your promotion process is not rational, you can often get it fixed by appealing to the business case. If the cost of the process can be justified, do it. Otherwise, get rid of it.
I agree that a lunch factor of zero is a non-starter, for a lot of reasons. No single person should be held responsible for bringing down production.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply