Maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't worked anywhere for years that's had a "staging" environment, as least not as this article describes it.
Everywhere I've worked either has spin up environments, a developer issued test environment or various lower testing environments where we can deploy individual features for testing and QA.
But more to the point everywhere I've worked has also combined these lower level testing environments with some kind of pre-production environment which features more data (typically a clone of prod). On this environment often a further layer of tests are ran and new features are manually reviewed one last time before being deployed to production.
Where does a "staging" environment fit in this? Unless I'm miss understanding the article seems to suggest code goes, dev -> staging -> prod, but aside from one developer role I had in the early 00s it's always been, dev -> test env -> pre-prod -> prod.
Is the article suggesting you can just do away with pre-prod environments for "preview" environments? And why would you even want to do that? As I understand it one of the features of a pre-prod environment is that is persists and isn't a clean slate each time. Any mess that can accumulate in prod can accumulate in a pre-prod environment.
I guess I'm not following what this article is advocating for.
Everywhere I've worked either has spin up environments, a developer issued test environment or various lower testing environments where we can deploy individual features for testing and QA.
But more to the point everywhere I've worked has also combined these lower level testing environments with some kind of pre-production environment which features more data (typically a clone of prod). On this environment often a further layer of tests are ran and new features are manually reviewed one last time before being deployed to production.
Where does a "staging" environment fit in this? Unless I'm miss understanding the article seems to suggest code goes, dev -> staging -> prod, but aside from one developer role I had in the early 00s it's always been, dev -> test env -> pre-prod -> prod.
Is the article suggesting you can just do away with pre-prod environments for "preview" environments? And why would you even want to do that? As I understand it one of the features of a pre-prod environment is that is persists and isn't a clean slate each time. Any mess that can accumulate in prod can accumulate in a pre-prod environment.
I guess I'm not following what this article is advocating for.