An absolute doddle assuming you have an absolutely excellent test suite. Otherwise on any nontrivial codebase you will still have regressions that make it to production and you will waste your time squashing bugs rather than writing new features.
there's good skills to write test suites but each codebase needs its own bespoke implementation paired with so much institutional knowledge. but companies keep laying off those knowledge holders and QA to boot
it's almost like shareholders > leadership > middle managers see 'enshittification' as aspirational and are doing their best to implement a systems-level strategy in pursuit of it
None of your users or managers think about errors as fraction of interactions. Even despite trying to label things as 99.99% reliable. Some managers will claim they do, but they aren’t being honest with themselves. Usually when they get mad it will be about having to deal with a problem happening twice in a week or a month. So now they’re yelling at you while you want to yell at them about being dishonest.
for all of it's vaunted 'big data' and 'metrics-driven outcomes' and whatnot, as soon as a single medium-to-large user starts complaining about an obscure component or wanting new features it was all hands on deck, roadmaps be damned, data out the window, who cares about CVEs/tech debt/fixing MVPs, let's do it MVP (again) instead of building something maintainable and extensible and then forget all about it like a child with ADHD when the next largeish user sends your C-suite an angry DM
meanwhile the core features that most people are happy with and the entire reason they chose your solution gets ignored and one day you look in your lunchbox and the food is all gone and C-suite's golden parachuted out to some cushier job somewhere else
As someone once put it, we should learn from the noble mule, who when beaten is more likely to stubbornly sit down and refuse to move than to get on with the work at hand.