2014-09-28 MARCUS PHILIP
In Continuous Delivery Pipelines: GoCD vs Jenkins, there are some good points on modeling continuous delivery, but to make his point, that Go is better (at CD) than Jenkins, he chooses to represent Jenkins with the Build Pipeline Plugin and not Delivery Pipeline Plugin by Diabol with superior visualization. I haven’t used Go and I would like to get the time to have a deeper look at it. As far as I gather, it’s a competent tool, quite possibly better at CD than Jenkins, but I have to say that it is quite possible to do CD and pipelines in Jenkins, I am doing it as I write.
His post brings up some interesting points like, do we need pipelines as first class citizens rather than just ‘visual doodles’ (in my tools)? I am a bit skeptical. Pipelines are indeed central in CD, but my thoughts on what’s lacking from Jenkins goes a bit differently. I think we need a set of tools to do CD and pipelines.
Pipelines should probably be expressed outside of the (build/CI/deploy) tool because they will span several domains and abstractions levels. There will be need for different visualizations of the pipeline state and configuration. In fact what matters in run-time (as opposed to design-time) is not the pipeline itself, but questions like:
- Example: It’s passed commit phase and has been deployed to the first environment where automated tests are running
- Example: It has version 1.4.123 of app X stemming from commit Y and version 1.3.567 of the VM template stemming from commit Z.
The pipeline will also be subjected to continuous improvements. Then, in design-time (and debug-time), there are questions like:
What are the up-stream dependencies of this job? Where is this artifact produced? Your tools should help you answer questions like that, simply and quickly, by good visualization and design.