5 ms·

> Counter-argument: Just let it sit there and keep working? Outside of security patches, if there even are any, there's always the option of "just stop touching

by q3k 7y ago

> Counter-argument: Just let it sit there and keep working? Outside of security patches, if there even are any, there's always the option of "just stop touching it." That's not exactly possible with a monorepo that has no branches and everything has to be maintained 'in step'. Any time a library breaks API, all dependents must pass tests, and/or be fixed so that they do. Any time a runtime API breaks (think things like interfaces to runtime authentication, compute scheduling, database services, network bandwidth scheduling), updated services must be made to conform and then be rolled out. As with real life, this might mean getting a 1 or 2 year old deployment system (configuration for production, roll out code, ...) undusted, understood, probably fixed in turn, etc. As such, some SRE/SWE team _must_ be responsible for projects that are in the "don't touch"/maintenance phase. This is very unsexy, toil-y and you don't get promoted for it - and as such barely anyone wants to do it at Google.

formercoder 7y ago
This. Someone has to be in OWNERS and it’s difficult to find people willing to do this because fixing breakage due to API changes isn’t going to be on anyone’s OKRs. And if it’s not on your OKRs, it’s not contributing to your promo.
- eecc 7y ago
  Which proves the futility of these OKR metrics. Once the metric becomes the objective, it loses any usefulness, indeed it becomes the opposite
  - mattnewton 7y ago
    How is that true? The OKR explicitly doesn't include cloud print because it is deemed not important to Google, and so cloud print is not worked on. Seems to be WAI?
    - asveikau 7y ago
      Seems then like the incentive systems have a blind spot: they don't account for pissing off users relying on a service. Why shouldn't people get promos for doing heroic acts on obscure services that actually delight users in real life? That surely has a benefit for Google. And the lack of it has a cost. Think of it like a PR budget. They'd get fewer grumpy articles about unmaintained services being dropped.
remus 7y ago
> This is very unsexy, toil-y and you don't get promoted for it - and as such barely anyone wants to do it at Google. I don't think this is google specific. Keeping a dead product on life support is going to get boring for most people after a while.
- asdff 7y ago
  There is an infinite supply of cheap intern labor at every college in the U.S. chomping at the bit to mop the floor at google hq.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Champing at the bit. https://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/ https://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/
    - bernierocks 7y ago
      Did you read your own link? Chomping at the bit has the same meaning.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        "Still, if you’re writing for school or for readers who are versed in English, champing at the bit is probably the safer choice."
        bernierocks 7y ago
        ..said nobody but an English major.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        Neither productive, insightful, nor accurate, just FYI.
cwyers 7y ago
> As such, some SRE/SWE team _must_ be responsible for projects that are in the "don't touch"/maintenance phase. This is very unsexy, toil-y and you don't get promoted for it - and as such barely anyone wants to do it at Google. That's Google's problem, and it's a problem they might want to look into solving if they want to turn around their reputation for killing products.
- sujNansnam 7y ago
  Google pays their engineers a lot and they’d need to recruit a lot more of them if they were going to keep running everything they ever killed. That, or stop launching so many new products.
  - specialist 7y ago
    Gee, then I hope they figure out a viable biz model to fund all that producting.
  - freeopinion 7y ago
    I know it's beside the point, but you stepped on one of my peeves. Google doesn't have to pay their engineers "a lot". They don't have to keep sucking more and more wealthy people into a concentrated corner of California. They could open a modest office in Nebraska and pay some 5-figure salaries. They could hire some run-of-the-mill college grads to work on a "dead" project. They could cut their teeth on low-profile stuff within Google and perhaps demonstrate abilities that move them up the ladder. I'm not saying that Google should do this to keep everything they've ever touched alive. But spreading the talent around geographically would solve a lot of problems for Google and for California and for the world. Same for all FAANGs. Quit earmarking $billions to solve the housing crisis in SF. Spend $1M in St. Louis and move 100 employees out of SF. Then spend $1M in Amarillo, and $1M in Sioux Falls. Shucks, maybe splurge and spend $20M here and there. $250M to build up 10 offices around the continent will do more to solve the housing crisis in CA than $1B spent in CA. And it would cut FAANG costs in half at the same time.
    - corporateslave5 7y ago
techslave 7y ago
that’s a problem, yes, but orthogonal to it being in a monorepo. the google monorepo is NOTHING like a git monorepo

by q3k 7y ago

formercoder 7y ago

This. Someone has to be in OWNERS and it’s difficult to find people willing to do this because fixing breakage due to API changes isn’t going to be on anyone’s OKRs. And if it’s not on your OKRs, it’s not contributing to your promo.

eecc 7y ago
Which proves the futility of these OKR metrics. Once the metric becomes the objective, it loses any usefulness, indeed it becomes the opposite
- mattnewton 7y ago
  How is that true? The OKR explicitly doesn't include cloud print because it is deemed not important to Google, and so cloud print is not worked on. Seems to be WAI?
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Seems then like the incentive systems have a blind spot: they don't account for pissing off users relying on a service. Why shouldn't people get promos for doing heroic acts on obscure services that actually delight users in real life? That surely has a benefit for Google. And the lack of it has a cost. Think of it like a PR budget. They'd get fewer grumpy articles about unmaintained services being dropped.

remus 7y ago

> This is very unsexy, toil-y and you don't get promoted for it - and as such barely anyone wants to do it at Google. I don't think this is google specific. Keeping a dead product on life support is going to get boring for most people after a while.

asdff 7y ago
There is an infinite supply of cheap intern labor at every college in the U.S. chomping at the bit to mop the floor at google hq.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Champing at the bit. https://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/ https://grammarist.com/usage/champing-chomping-at-the-bit/
  - bernierocks 7y ago
    Did you read your own link? Chomping at the bit has the same meaning.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      "Still, if you’re writing for school or for readers who are versed in English, champing at the bit is probably the safer choice."
      - bernierocks 7y ago
        ..said nobody but an English major.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        Neither productive, insightful, nor accurate, just FYI.

cwyers 7y ago

> As such, some SRE/SWE team _must_ be responsible for projects that are in the "don't touch"/maintenance phase. This is very unsexy, toil-y and you don't get promoted for it - and as such barely anyone wants to do it at Google. That's Google's problem, and it's a problem they might want to look into solving if they want to turn around their reputation for killing products.

sujNansnam 7y ago
Google pays their engineers a lot and they’d need to recruit a lot more of them if they were going to keep running everything they ever killed. That, or stop launching so many new products.
- specialist 7y ago
  Gee, then I hope they figure out a viable biz model to fund all that producting.
- freeopinion 7y ago
  I know it's beside the point, but you stepped on one of my peeves. Google doesn't have to pay their engineers "a lot". They don't have to keep sucking more and more wealthy people into a concentrated corner of California. They could open a modest office in Nebraska and pay some 5-figure salaries. They could hire some run-of-the-mill college grads to work on a "dead" project. They could cut their teeth on low-profile stuff within Google and perhaps demonstrate abilities that move them up the ladder. I'm not saying that Google should do this to keep everything they've ever touched alive. But spreading the talent around geographically would solve a lot of problems for Google and for California and for the world. Same for all FAANGs. Quit earmarking $billions to solve the housing crisis in SF. Spend $1M in St. Louis and move 100 employees out of SF. Then spend $1M in Amarillo, and $1M in Sioux Falls. Shucks, maybe splurge and spend $20M here and there. $250M to build up 10 offices around the continent will do more to solve the housing crisis in CA than $1B spent in CA. And it would cut FAANG costs in half at the same time.
  - corporateslave5 7y ago

techslave 7y ago

that’s a problem, yes, but orthogonal to it being in a monorepo. the google monorepo is NOTHING like a git monorepo