Timeline for Refused access to make changes directly to the live site
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2017 at 18:48 | comment | added | Wesley Long | I do have to say this: As a "Lone Ranger" in my company for development, I actually have created separate identities in Active Directory for my roles as a developer and as release manager, just to ensure I don't do something by accident without looking at it twice. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 16:08 | comment | added | Ben | It's nothing to do with big vs. small @gazz, regulated vs. unregulated, yes. | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | gazzz0x2z | @toadflakz : exactly. More generally, it's part of the heavyweight processes that are unfortunately unavoidalbe in big shops. You don't like it? Work for a small shop. | |
| Nov 21, 2016 at 9:19 | comment | added | toadflakz | It's worth noting as well that in financial corporations it's considered a critical operational risk to manage that anyone who has direct knowledge of how to manipulate a financial IT system's output is NOT given access to the Production servers, regardless of seniority. | |
| Nov 20, 2016 at 16:16 | comment | added | Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight | It's not even just a question of seniority. Having a second set of eyes look at changes before it goes into production is always a good idea even if the reviewer is significantly more junior than the original author. | |
| Nov 20, 2016 at 15:02 | history | answered | dfundako | CC BY-SA 3.0 |