You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Do forks with fallback - my HF21 wish
So yes, roll back is a thing. But WAY before that, lack of basic coding standards, peer review BEFORE dev commits, documentation, testing, experience and competence are bigger things.
Yep. Rollback should 'not be seen as an option' in testing and prep but, should be available if absolutely necessary, so it doesn't become a crutch.
There is no way to prevent bugs in production systems. If there was, cars and planes would never crash. That said, we definitely don't have safeguards in place here to mitigate them to the levels we should have them in place.
Fundamental errors were made here. Fundamental checks were not done. Fundamental understanding of the changes being made en masse here was not achieved. Fundamental documentation was not provided PRIOR to the testing and release phases. Fundamental testing environments did NOT exist in a proper fashion for anyone to use, least of all the average witness.
Someone will definitely try to refute this in a follow up comment here, Id bet on it, and they will be taking advantage of double speak to try and throw shade and fool the public to discredit those who stand up with this claim because we don't have to worry about losing our income by falling out of the top 20 or our stinc employment, trust, fam. Cui Bono - who benefits?
Roll backs are an emergency exit. Before you leap through them, 100 other things should have been done before the plane left the ground.
"The witnesses are at fault, and should have read the code" is all at once, a truth, and a gross red herring at the same time. For reasons the average non-technical reader would even understand if we found the right simple metaphors to explain them.
Maybe this metaphor will work. The plane crashes. The engineers made a change to it that they did not create proper tests for, didn't document well, and did not publish about in advance. They had no one check their work before bolting it in the plane and when queried, said, well we can't really articulate it in english, but fly the plane awhile and we'll see how it works out.
After the crash they says, well, it's up to the fuel guys, the ground crew ,the flight attendants and the pilot and co-pilot job to make sure our random undocumented changes worked, right?
And the public doesn't know they are wrong, so they get away with such remarks.
And that's why there's a lot of FUD and pissed off people pointing fingers right now.
But it all comes back down to the fail of the engineers who set up the failure. And those who allowed it to become this way.
I broadly agree with you but I have to say no to this:
No way. It's not the first thing but patch after patch to a live system - no. We're talking vaguely here, your 100 things might be 5 of mine, but as it sounds no. You've got to know when to say, it's not actually ready, let users come first and let take our time to get it right.
Ask yourself again, what's the rush for HF20? The sun will rise again.
This reply confused me, its like you are stating you want to disagree but then you sort of go ahead and agree? No snark, you lost me here.
Haha! Okay I see that. What I'm saying is yes, for emergencies but it's theoretically always available, even now, but it is unthinkable to many witnesses. So no, not the 100th thing you try, the 5th thing.
The difference of attitude I'm talking about is perhaps more important. Repeat after me: We can go back. No one believes that.