ITT: people who don't do incremental rollouts or run reliable software stacks. Sure, there are scenarios where you can justify rolling forward when you're spra

ITT: people who don't do incremental rollouts or run reliable software stacks. Sure, there are scenarios where you can justify rolling forward when you're spraying packets of death everywhere. None of those scenarios are the default - the default is roll back. (Imagine if there was some latent bug in the new release corrupting data in transit that you didn't notice until 100%, and you're not sure where it is, just that it's happening - now you literally can't roll back, because your current release will hose the previous one. At this point all you can do is go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.) Also, the title of the post screams pretty loudly to me that the people making the call to push the backwards-incompatible release didn't seriously think through the implications of their decision.