> devs were just testing what they changed and never noticed something horribly broken somewhere else. There's your problem. If they broke it but didn't test

> devs were just testing what they changed and never noticed something horribly broken somewhere else. There's your problem. If they broke it but didn't test what they broke, then they changed it but didn't realise they had. "Horribly broken elsewhere" sounds like the sort of thing that should show up in an automated test, no? If the problem is "we don't have a good enough automated test suite and our architecture doesn't limit the blast radius of changes" then I can see how throwing QA headcount at it might look tempting.