Talk:DevOps

DevOps is Culture

This article is a joke, right from the very first poorly written paragraph. DevOps is culture, period. Whomever wrote it is totally confused about the difference between Agile and DevOps, particularly when DevOps as a practice can and is widely used in both Agile and Waterfall environments. It should be completely rewritten by someone who knows what they are talking about. Flybd5 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This article has got worse over the past few months. What has happened? Lots of valuable content and references have been removed. There was some great history content, including Patrick Debois and the DevOps reports that are missing now. Tomgeraghty (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The article has been the target of a lot of link spam with people adding links of dubious quality and often trying to promote blogs and unreliable sources. It would benefit from people who understand the subject rewriting or editing sections. Jmccormac (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to write up a section on the history and evolution of DevOps, but looking at this page and what's been removed already, I'm sure it would get removed pretty quickly.Tomgeraghty (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

As long as the cited sources are reliable and not blogs or promotional, it should be no problem. It is an encyclopedia article rather than a how-to so it should be understandble for people not familiar with the subject. For historical citations, academic sources or journal links tend to work best. Then there are book and subject magazine links. The main things to avoid are promotional links, blogs or self-promotional links.Jmccormac (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Not precise

I leave the article more confused than I was going in. I'm not sure why this is, but I learnt from my friend in the position that it is essentially "SysAdmins who do coding". I think this is a more precise definition than what the lead sentence tries to express.

The article seems to be full of corporate-speak and doesn't fulfill the purpose of enlightening the reader about what DevOps actually is, instead of encouraging people to adopt the practice. Mount2010 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article is very confusing, and is written more like a academic research paper (lots of name drops of researchers). I came here as an engineer from a non-software field. I don't know what DevSecOps is other than "it has something to do with software development" and "managers think it is important". At least with the amount of time I was prepared to invest reading the article, I still don't know what DevSecOps is other than it has something to do with software development and people think it is important. Actually I have a new takeaway, which is that industry and the people who use this word don't agree what it means either. Needs to be tightened with more effective summary sections. 149.32.192.35 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of large sections

@Barbinary: Your edit summary didn't make clear why you removed several sections entirely earlier today.

Was this intentional? If it was, what was the rationale for removing them? Was it purely removing material from unreliable sources?

This is what the table of contents used to look like and what it looks like after the edit:

Old and new tables of contents

Old:

    1 Definition
    2 History
    3 Toolchains
    4 Relationship to other approaches
        4.1 Agile
        4.2 ArchOps
        4.3 TestOps
        4.4 Continuous delivery
        4.5 DataOps
        4.6 Site-reliability engineering
        4.7 Systems administration
        4.8 WinOps
        4.9 Toyota production system, lean thinking, kaizen
        4.10 DevSecOps, Shifting Security Left
    5 Goals
    6 Criticism
    7 Cultural change
        7.1 DevOps as a job title
        7.2 Building a DevOps culture
    8 Deployment
        8.1 Architecturally significant requirements
        8.2 Microservices
        8.3 DevOps automation
    9 Adoption
        9.1 DevOps practices and adoption
    10 See also
    11 Notes
    12 References
    13 Further reading

New:

    1 Definitions and History
    2 DevOps toolchain
    3 Relationship to other approaches
        3.1 Agile
        3.2 Continuous delivery
        3.3 DataOps
        3.4 Site reliability engineering
        3.5 Systems administration
    4 Goals
        4.1 Views on the benefits claimed for DevOps
    5 Cultural change
        5.1 DevOps as a job title
        5.2 Building a DevOps culture
    6 Deployment
    7 DevOps and architecture
    8 Scope of adoption
    9 DevOps Transformation
    10 See also
    11 References
    12 Further reading

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

this looks more like an accident than a real change. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

DevSecOps should be split out

== Splitting proposal ==

I propose that the section about DevSecOps be split into a separate page called [[DevSecOps]]. The content of the section deserves its own section, similar to other topics like Agile. This section can be enlarged to make its own page. ~~~~

DevSecOps is a separate practice from DevOps and deserves its own page. 7YR43L (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. DevSecOps is take on DevOps. It's a well known and used term in the wild, but I think it's more smoke than fire. Marketing. Stevebroshar (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Deming did not create PDCA

I'm not a normal editor so I don't know how this is supposed to work. I tried to edit this page recently to remove a reference to Deming that implies that PDCA is his. But the Wikipedia article on PDCA states Deming did not agree with PDCA. He championed a different system, PDSA, that he didn't even create, he credited Shewhart with it.

Wikipedia is contradicting itself and passing off a false implication as truth. But I don't care enough to figure out how to convince an editor not to revert my edit. Do what you will...Peterwwillis (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Add AI coding assistant considerations to DevSecOps section

The current DevSecOps section comprehensively covers traditional security testing (SAST, DAST, SCA) but doesn't address how AI coding assistants are changing the security landscape for DevSecOps practitioners. I'd like to propose adding a paragraph on this emerging challenge.

Disclosure: I'm an author and podcast host covering AI security topics and am working on related content, so I have a potential COI. I'm proposing this on the Talk page rather than editing directly, and all suggested sources are third-party.

Proposed addition (after the paragraph on security testing methods):

The adoption of AI coding assistants such as GitHub Copilot, Claude Code and Cursor introduces additional security considerations for DevSecOps teams. Research has found that AI-generated code exhibits security weaknesses at notable rates, with one study identifying vulnerabilities in 29.5% of Python and 24.2% of JavaScript code snippets generated by these tools. Industry surveys indicate that a majority of developers encounter security issues in AI-generated code, with many reporting that such code sometimes bypasses organizational security policies. These findings suggest that existing SAST and code review practices remain essential when AI-assisted development is used, and that DevSecOps pipelines may need to account for the specific vulnerability patterns associated with AI-generated code.

Rationale:

• AI coding assistants are now widely adopted (GitHub reports millions of Copilot users)
• The security implications are directly relevant to DevSecOps practices
• Multiple peer-reviewed and industry sources document these concerns
• The addition is neutral and doesn't advocate for/against AI tools, just notes security considerations

Thoughts? Radius314 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Radius314 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I would trim for brevity and to avoid subtle editorializing. This also reads like it was LLM-generated.

...additional security considerations... is far too vague, and ...notable rates... is vague filler. If you're only directly citing one study, attribute that study and give a year. A secondary source would be much, much better here.

Likewise, the "industry surveys" line implies that there is more than one survey, but the cited source only mentions the one from late 2023.

Business cliches like "essential", "notable", "encounter" (instead of find) add WP:TONE and WP:NPOV issues. Like I said, it reads like it was LLM generated, so please review WP:LLM.

Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Platform Engineering

I added a trivial link to Platform Engineering here in "see also', but I do wonder if it could use a small section? As someone who's had both titles of DevOps Engineer and Platform Engineer, I think the industry's subtly changing to the point where more and more companies hire Platform Engineers, but what they're really after is DevSecOps Practitioners. This keeps the people in suits happy who say "devops is just a culture", but let's us sysadmins who became SREs who became devops who became platform engineers keep doing the exact same job. ;-)

I'm of two minds whether Platform Engineering needs a section here though. I wouldn't want to detract from the already weaker Platform Engineering page. Funderburg (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

GitOps - it's a much bigger difference

It is definitely too little. It gives the impression it's just a slight variation on DevOps, but in reality workflows differ quite a bit. This should be majorly expanded. ~2026-38073-05 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)