@Dawny33 or @Tensibai, could you synonymise/merge ci to continuous-integration?

@Aurora0001 Done. Need votes : devops.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms :)

You're a moderator... You can binding-approve it

Ohh Wow! Done then.

tadaaa :D

Thanks

This seemed excessively long:

I didn't really expect to chain 4 different commands when I started the answer... I wonder if I missed something obvious

Plus the bc trick seems like a bit of a hack

Sounds hacky indeed, I'd use awk to compare the floating point value and return a true false error code to stop the script (which would replace ses/Bc and the comparison in bash

For the tag, hard on phone :) will do on Tuesday if no one did it before

@Tensibai Dawny has already done it

I suppose I could probably save a step if I used bc to compare

But what you gain in command size, you lose in simplicity... I think the explicit way is relatively obvious and easy to understand

Also, anyone want to merge this?

The consensus was [aws-*] so it'd be great if someone could merge them, and perhaps synonymise

@Aurora0001 Not sure about this. Most tags here are amazon-*, also SO tags follow the same style. So, prolly let's stick with it.

What do you say?

I say that everyone calls it AWS Lambda, so it makes sense to use the logical tag

If you type in aws-lambda in the new question box, the tag won't show up at all

If the consensus is to have amazon-*, there should at least be a synonym though I think

Sure. I'm adding the synonym atm.

Also, if we make aws-lambda the master, we have to make it for other services to. So, let's take a community opinon on it :)

Yeah, I would go with aws-lambda as the master personally

I suggest we just go with how Amazon brands it, really

[amazon-ec2] is fine because that's the brand name

If you want the data...

trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=AWS%20Lambda,Amazon%20Lambda

@Aurora0001 I +1 your suggestion. In fact, I think aws-* is a much better format for AWS tags, than having amazon-*

But, will raise a meta discussion, and let's take a decision then!

Did you synonymise all the Amazon products, @Dawny? That must take some patience :P

haha I was about to go for a run. So, did it now, just in case I forget later :D

if nessecessity is the mother of all invention, procastination is the father.

@Aurora0001 Added a meta post. Pl leave an answer :)

@Dawny33 Will do

My answer

I'm puzzled... On the [aws] tag wiki, there's AWS CodeWatch listed... which doesn't exist

Edited to fix

Unless I'm being stupid

Keep or delete ? devops.stackexchange.com/a/912/13

Well, that's up to you, really... The general SE policy is not to delete answers just because they're "wrong"

Because that causes problems when moderators are expected to judge if any answer is "right" or not

It is an attempt to answer the question, however bad.

But you could argue it's mostly unwanted ranting about sysadmins being 'low level' without any evidence to support it

Calling sysadmin 'low level and very easy' and saying they're unskilled is a little bit belittling

I can say I find it offending for myself as a sysadmin, the only reason I consider deleting is this (and so I ask for other point of view)

It's a rant, pure and simple. If the author had put it in non-emotive, evidence-based words then I could abide by keeping it, even with it being fundamentally flawed.

Time for an edit, I think

What do you think of my edit?

Slightly less ranty?

I am biased to ask for improvement or to edit, I'll let you do

Still not what I would consider correct, but at least it no longer calls sysadmins 'low level'

Less offending, still ranty IMHO, part of my comment is outdated that said, but I'll leave it for now

@RichardSlater for sysadmi /Sre I may try to share my personnal experience, I'm in a kind of SRE position, but I still consider myself as a net/sysadmin

Go for it, really interested to know where other peoples heads are at.

I'll do on Tuesday, on a real keyboard :) too much typos on phone and adding link is too hard for my laziness :)

As for that post, it seems to have a score which... reflects its accuracy quite well :P

Plus, I'm now balanced perfectly on 1,000 rep ;)

Hmm, the OP didn't like my edit... Unsurprising.

I've added my own answer to try and introduce some facts about the origin of DevOps.

@Aurora0001 the fact it is wrong is a side case, I wouldn't care if it would not be offending for a lot of sysadmins like me

Question about deployment - the definition seems to be the non-DevOps definition: "the activities to make (part of) a system available for use". Whereas the DevOps definition of deployment would be "A technical handling where a new version of the software is deployed to a specific environment" as per Decouple release from deployment. Thoughts?

I'd stay with the usual meaning and not a devopsy one, may worth a word in the tag wiki that said to expose this specific definition, but I don't think anyone will read it to specify it one way or the other when tagging a question