> I don't get that. There was no code issue. The old and new code both worked as intended, it was a deployment and deployment-verification problem. A code revi

> I don't get that. There was no code issue. The old and new code both worked as intended, it was a deployment and deployment-verification problem. A code review could raise the issue of repurposing a flag in case they had to revert the deploy. Changing the semantics of a flag is a big no-no anyway, and there are ways to guard against that. > Yes they did. They staged the new code and tested it. They did a slow deployment also. But they didn't had a staging environment that matched their live environment, apparently. You want a staging environment that is 1:1. > They did revert the deploy within the 45 minutes. It made it worse. If you think reverting a deploy by simply pushing an older version is the same as a contingency plan, think again.