Back Up and Define Rollback Before You Touch Production
The safest time to decide how to recover is before the change has modified the evidence you depend on.
The safest time to decide how to recover is before the change has modified the evidence you depend on.
Separating image construction, configuration injection and runtime startup makes failures easier to localize.
A configuration should render successfully from a clean checkout before it is trusted on a production host.
Applying a change and proving it works are separate milestones that need separate evidence.
A source-code change can make a release feel finished, but several deployment and cache layers may still sit between the repository and a user's browser. A new file, a newly published artifact, and a newly observed response are three different pieces of evidence.
A successful target deployment is not a full success if the change quietly damages another workload on the same host.
When a deployment fails later, the first forensic question is which reviewed source revision actually produced it.
Caddy has graceful config reloads; restarting the process turns a routing edit into avoidable downtime.
Cleanliness answers whether local tracked files changed; freshness answers whether the revision is the one you intended to run.
Reducing change size lowers diagnosis time and makes rollback a practical control instead of a theoretical option.
Recording containers, ports and revisions after deployment gives future incident response a known-good comparison point.
Incident investigation becomes easier when a release can answer which source produced which artifact. A label such as latest is not enough. Latest changes with time; a commit or artifact identity does not.
The separation between process lifecycle and network reachability.
Rollback usually sounds like restoring an older release. But if the new code changed the structure or meaning of data, whether the old code can still read that data is a separate question.