Talk:DevOps

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)

devops

devops has been advanced from past few years so i would recommend to update with even more intresting , advanced and newest topics

~2026-51671-75 (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

References

the references mentioned are too old where the latest year could be of 2022 where it even consist of papers from 2011 it would be helpful if uh update it with latest published papers

~2026-51671-75 (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)