Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Jesus Christ I never thought id be happy to have a change control process
Lots of safety measures really suck. But they generally get implemented because the alternative is far worse.
At my current company all changes have to happen via GitHub PR and commit because we use GitOps (ex: ArgoCD with Kubernetes). Any changes you do manually are immediately overwritten when ArgoCD notices the config drift.
This makes development more annoying sometimes but I'm so damn glad when I can immediately look at GitHub for an audit trail and source of truth.
It wasn't InfoSec in this case but I had an annoying tech lead that would merge to main without telling people, so anytime something broke I had his GitHub activity bookmarked and could rule that out first.
You can also lock down the repo to require approvals before merge into main branch to avoid this.
Since we were on the platform team we were all GitHub admins 😩. So it all relied on trust. Is there a way to block even admins?
Hm can't say. I'm using bitbucket and it does block admins, though they all have the ability to go into settings and remove the approval requirement. No one does though because then the bad devs would be able to get changes in without reviews.
That sounds like a good idea. I'll take another look at GitHub settings. Thanks!
The past several years I have been working more as a process engineer than a technical one. I've worked in Problem Management, Change Management, and currently in Incident for a major defense contractor (yes, you've heard of it). So I've been on both sides. Documenting an incident is a PITA. File a Change record to restart a server that is in an otherwise healthy cluster? You're kidding, right? What the hell is a "Problem" record and why do I need to mess with it?
All things I've heard and even thought over the years. What it comes down to, the difference between a Mom and Pop operation, that has limited scalability and a full Enterprise Environment that can support a multi-billion dollar business... Is documentation. That's what those numb nuts in that Insurance Company were too stupid to understand.