4 ms·
To me, it sounds like they rolled one software component back to a known working version. That's not unreasonable. And doesn't sound like "a lot of unnecessar
by joevandyk 16y ago
To me, it sounds like they rolled one software component back to a known working version.
That's not unreasonable. And doesn't sound like "a lot of unnecessary version control gymnastics" to me.
Of course, the problem was that the version they rolled back to was incompatible with the current version of their other services.
- random42 16y agoHow is rolling back one of software component, without knowing/calculating whether it will "play nice" with the rest of the architecture/services is acceptable/reasonable? Am I missing something here, please let me know?
- joevandyk 16y agoSince what they had was already broken and customers were down, they probably didn't have the hours it would take to correctly verify the older version of the broken component would work with the rest of their system.
- random42 16y agoThey ended up reverting and undoing revert due to non-verification. Also, paper calculations to be certain about the effects, are not supposed to take a lot of time.