Speaking at QCon London 2016 – CD with Windows and .NET

Continuous Delivery with Windows and .NET

We’re thrilled to announce that we (Chris O’Dell and Matthew Skelton) will be speaking at QCon London on 7th March 2016 on Continuous Delivery – making it work with Windows and .NET.


Our talk will be in the DevOps & CI/CD track hosted by the co-author of the Continuous Delivery book, Dave Farley.

We’ll be sharing our experiences of getting Continuous Delivery to work with Windows and .NET alongside some material from the O’Reilly book. We expect to have the book available at the conference (at least for download).


There are discounts on tickets if you register before 30th Jan!

View original post

Out of the Fire Swamp – Part II, Peering into the mist

Brilliant insights into data consistency from Adrian Colyer

the morning paper

Peering into the mist

In Part I we examined the data crisis, accepted that anomalies are inevitable, and realized the central importance of the application. But what should we do about it? Here I’m peering into the mist and speculating about a way forward, navigating via the signposts that the database research community has put in place for us. Hopefully those objects in the mist aren’t just (chaos) gorillas coming to get me…

Application-Datastore Mapping

So far we’ve seen that the most efficient approaches we know require an understanding at the application level, and programmers want control at the application level. This seems like a good starting point. What shape might that take? A new programming language is a real long shot if you want to impact the mainstream directly. Instead, we’ll need to meet the programmers where they are and look at solutions that work with mainstream application development…

View original post 1,643 more words

Database connection auditing for Continuous Delivery

Skelton Thatcher Consulting - Blog

Summary: Continuous Delivery of software systems can be a struggle if a central database is accessed by multiple applications directly, due to the (perceived) increased risk and the need for coordination across different teams. In this post, we demonstrate some techniques for discovering the applications connecting to a database, so you can start to untangle the applications and truly enable Continuous Delivery.

It is a commonly used pattern for multiple applications and services to integrate at the database. While this is known to have some benefits (such as simpler applications as they don’t require a layer of integration services), it also tends to increase the complexity of change, therefore increasing the cost of change while reducing the speed at which we can deliver. It is this reduction in speed that most clearly impacts Continuous Delivery (CD). We must be able to deliver small changes quickly to enable fast feedback and small batch sizes.

View original post 683 more words

Notes on ‘team responsibilities in cloud-native operations’ (Pete Mounce)

Summary:  Pete Mounce (@petemounce) from Just Eat gave a compelling talk at the London Continuous Delivery meetup group on ‘team responsibilities in cloud-native operations’. I found the talk hugely engaging, with loads of detail applicable to many organisations. Here are my notes from the meetup.

I captured my notes as slides:

Update: the video of Pete’s talk is here on Vimeo:

Pete Mounce video frame

There were several specific points made by Pete that were interesting for me:

Continue reading

Bridge the Business-DevOps gap with agile practices

Skelton Thatcher Consulting - Blog

Summary: some organisations are attempting to adopt DevOps without really understanding or adopting agile practices for software product development, and so are missing out on significant opportunities for improved innovation, delivery, and operation of their software systems. This gap between DevOps and ‘product’ or ‘the business’ is best bridged with agile practices.

How understood is agile?

I was recently chatting to the UK head of a medium-sized IT outsourcing company (3000+ people) about DevOps and in particular how agile practices are now effectively mandatory for new public sector software projects in the UK. This seemed to reflect a recent ‘pivot’ away from traditional over-planned software projects, helped by reports from Gartner, Forrester and friends that have identified agile-based software delivery as significantly more effective for most scenarios than traditional ‘waterfall’ methods.

However, are agile practices really understood and used in organisations, especially those adopting DevOps? Based on my recent experience…

View original post 746 more words

HP is trying to patent Continuous Delivery – here is how you can help block this madness

Summary: Hewlett-Packard (HP) has filed several patents covering standard Continuous Delivery (CD) practices. You can help to have these patents revoked by providing ‘prior art’ examples on Stack Exchange.

On 1st March 2015 I discovered that in 2012 HP had filed a patent (WO2014027990) with the USPO for ‘Performance tests in a continuous deployment pipeline‘ (the patent was granted published in 2014). The exact search I used was https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?q=performance+testing++in+a+pipeline and the patent grabbed my attention almost immediately as it was around the 5th result (as I write this, it still is):

Search results for performance testing in a pipeline

I immediately tweeted and @-mentioned Jez Humble (@jezhumble) and Dave Farley (@davefarley77), co-authors of the foundational book Continuous Delivery, to alert them (their book was published in 2010, two years before the HP patents were filed).

My friend and colleague Steve Smith (@agilestevesmith) quickly created a ‘prior art’ request on the Ask Patents Stack Exchange site to coordinate the collection of references to prior art, so that we have a coordinated place to document the many existing examples of running performance tests in a deployment pipeline prior to the patent being filed. This will help us to refute this patent (WO2014027990). As of today (6th March 2015) the Ask Patents page and various Twitter threads had contributions from several early proponents of CD including Chris Read, Dan North, Jez Humble, Dave Farley, Pat Kua, Andreas Grabner, Erik Doernenburg, and Martin Fowler (amongst others).

The plot thickens

As the “WTF?!” spread on Twitter, Marco Abis (@capotribu) pointed out that not only were the authors almost literally unknown anywhere else on the internet, but that the same HP authors had filed patents for many more standard CD practices:

Here is a screenshot of the search results as of 6th March:

Patents by Inbar SHANI

For the record, here are the patent reference identifiers for these HP patents covering basic CD practices (alternate references given, and hyperlinks to the Ask Patents pages – I will update this page with links to new Ask Patent pages as they appear):

There may of course be other patents filed by HP covering standard CD practices (see below, Okay, what can I do to help?)

WT-actual-F is HP doing?!

There are two explanations I can think of for what HP is doing here. Either the authors of these patents – collectively Adam SPEKTOR, Inbar SHANI, Yaron Burg, Amichai Nitsan, Sigal MAON, Ilan Shufer, Eli Mordechai, and Lior Manor, all of Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. – have been locked away in a cupboard for the last 10 years and have independently invented terms like ‘deployment pipeline’ and are filing what they believe to be genuine applications for true innovations (in which case, I kind of get it, as I think that deployment pipelines are awesome), or (the more likely explanation in my view) HP is patent trolling in a frankly stupid and disrespectful way.

So what’s the problem?

The ‘inventions’ in the HP patents have been practiced, implemented, and documented by advocates of Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery for many years prior to 2012, particularly by people at ThoughtWorks but also by people from Atlassian, The Guardian, Dynatrace and many others (details in the Ask Patents page for WO2014027990A1).

For instance, here is extract from an article in Dr. Dobb’s (sadly now moribund) from February 2008 by Steve Haines called Continuous Integration and Performance Testing (examples use the first CI server, CruiseControl):

Now you can add performance tests into the continuous integration process. The most straightforward method is to create a new virtual project in CruiseControl, one that uses the same build script but executes a performance unit-testing target. The following shows the key changes you could make to a copy of Listing One’s project definition:

<project name=”ant-junit-performance-unit-tests”>…<schedule interval=”600″><ant anthome=”apache-ant-1.6.5″buildfile=”projects/${project.name}/build.xml”target=”performance-unit-tests.execute” /></schedule><publishers>


<artifactspublisher dest=”artifacts/${project.name}”



In this case, CruiseControl is configured to check for source updates every five minutes—because performance tests take longer to run, they cannot and should not be run as frequently. In a real-world application, checking hourly is more reasonable.

Not only does the article describe the concept of running performance tests as part of CI, but it also shows how; we are also shown how to collect the results, using JMeter:

Once integrated, you define a JMeter Ant task by adding the following to the Ant script:

 <taskdef name=”jmeter”classname=”org.programmerplanet.ant.taskdefs.jmeter.JMeterTask”/>

This is a clear example of prior art. For nearly 40 years Dr. Dobb’s Journal was one of the foremost software magazines in the world (I remember in the late 1990s tentatively reading my first Dr. Dobb’s articles on sorting algorithms and mutexes, and realising how relevant Dr. Dobb’s seemed). There is no excuse for the HP people for missing this kind of prior art when it was so readily available.

To me the patents filed by HP feel like a ‘land grab’ by a company that is struggling to be relevant in the world of Continuous Delivery, with old-skool application release automation (ARA) tools simply rebranded as ‘Continuous Delivery’ (incidentally, may the gods help anyone who pays for these soul-destroying HP tools).

Okay, so what can I do to help?

For each of the patents above we need examples of prior art before 2012: articles, blog posts, conference talks, book chapters, etc. If a patent does not have an Ask Patent page, please create an Ask Patents page (the easiest way to do this is via Google – search for the patent code). Then post the relevant details on the Ask Patents page for the specific patent.

You can also search for other patents from HP relating to CD – perhaps using a different author name (the patents above all relate to Inbar Shani only).

Together let us get the patents overturned through decent prior art details and stop this madness. From the start Continuous Delivery has been a practitioner- and community-led endeavour (with generous guidance from ThoughtWorks). CD is not the place for large behemoth corporations like HP to muscle in and take ownership. As Dan North puts it:

“Identification of a failed code change” in a build pipeline. As a patent. Really @HP? #getoffmylawn


Thanks to everyone who helped to spread the word about this, in particular Steve Smith, Dan North, Marco Abis, Pushpak Singh, and all who have added prior art details to the Ask Patents page and contributed to the Twitter WTF stream.


  1. Corrected ‘granted’ to ‘published’ in first main paragraph. (2015-03-08)

Continuous Delivery: Tools, Collaboration, and Conway’s Law – slides from QCon London

Skelton Thatcher Consulting - Blog

We were asked to speak in the DevOps & Continuous Delivery track at QCon London this year, and on 5th March our co-founder Matthew Skelton gave a talk on ‘Continuous Delivery: Tools, Collaboration, and Conway’s Law‘. Here are the slides and some photos from the talk:

Photo of Matthew Skelton at QCon London 2015

The recent CA DevOps Perspectives 2 report contains an article based on the themes in our QCon talk:

DevOps Perspectives II cover

Download the CA DevOps Perspectives 2 report now.

View original post