I don't know if I really follow the conclusion from this blog post although I sympathize with the complaints. Let's take one point: " In fact, not only will Git CI tools rebuild and redeploy your entire repo, they are often built explicitly for multi-repo projects." This seems patently wrong. On buildkite, which we use, you can explicitly set up build steps to trigger based on directory patterns.

In my experience on teams at growing companies, I've seen pain points around continuous integration, configuration management, integration testing, dev/prod parity, feature flagging and releasing, provisioning staging servers in terms of pure tech/infra issues. Beyond that, I've seen more pressing general organizational issues around tech debt, software design collaboration, architectural debt, code review processes -- these are all pressing and valid concerns. But I just find the conclusions of this blog post flat out wrong. To conflate an unsatisfactory CI choice and configuration (which is totally reasonable) with a failure of version control is a pretty serious one. It doesn't fully disprove the thesis, but it certainly doesn't lend it support.

If you've installed a wheel onto a poorly set up suspension and get handling issues, does it mean you should reinvent that wheel, or does it mean you should check if your suspension may need some tuning?