2 ms·

I think it's fair to mention the bug originated in redis-py, but I don't find it relevant at all to mention «open-source» in the opening line of the public stat

I think it's fair to mention the bug originated in redis-py, but I don't find it relevant at all to mention «open-source» in the opening line of the public statement about the outage. Or «outside library» for that matter. It was ChatGPT release QA that failed, and then they failed to admit it.

tnzk 4y ago
It might be redis-py originally and someone at public relations advised to replace it with something more general so that it would sound being nice.
fsckboy 4y ago
"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is a compliment to open source, and telling your users that you use open source is a positive reassurance on other dimensions as well; it's relevant, and the truth is always relevant; there's no harm in mentioning it. "Release early, release often" and "move fast and break things" are respected ideas that diminish the importance of QA. The more effective and efficient any QA you do is, yes, very valuable, and QA that finds broken things, all the better. But don't move slow is an OK compromise.