Hacker News Reader

Comment by enneff | Hacker News Reader

Without discussion? No, there is no legitimate reason for that.

You're being ridiculous. Emergency reverts are normal and expected when production systems are down.

I'm willing to stipulate this person's specific actions were probably hostile and unwarranted, but some sort of blanket "no revert without discussion" rule is just a way to cost your employer customers.

Context is important, and we don't have enough of it to be certain of what happened.

You're right, context is important. But where I work we provide an explanation when a commit is reverted, emergency or not.

This. In one week I had to rip out two different things in the middle of the night. One was a simple revert, one was dropping an entire system which had taken months of work and reverting back to the old system.

In both cases, I wrote a detailed technical explanation of why I had taken the action, and an apology for having to do it so suddenly, and I sent to to the entire group (a requirement anyway - if you make an on-the-fly ops change, you need to write up a full incident report so everyone knows what went wrong)

Reverting always needs to come with a "this is what was wrong".

Yeah, I can't imagine not giving context for an emergency revert. That's the time when clarity of intention is most important!

There may be legit reasons, but we have no indication that the reasons were legit. We do have someone involved who says they weren't. We should assume she is being truthful and accurate unless there is a reason to doubt her.

If github says the reverts were legit, then that's different, but you should go with the best information we have, instead of trying to find an excuse not to believe her based on no evidence.

I'm quite certain you've either mistaken me for someone else, or are looking for an excuse to argue with me based on a willful misinterpretation of my comment.

I'm even more certain that going through life believing everything you hear is not going to get you the results you want.

Isn't the Secret post screenshotted in the article itself one reason to doubt her character? Of course it may be all lies... it's just an anonymous comment and anyone could have written it, including the guy whose advances she spurned.

> We should assume she is being truthful and accurate unless there is a reason to doubt her.

I come from a different school of thought. Firstly she only mentions a few people but the entire company and an entire industry are being brought into question.

Generally I have found what has been echoed by TechCrunch to be lacking in details and specifically from one persons point of view which shows a very self indulged narrative.

My response is not to suggest it did not happen, but given what has been said, how it has been said, and whom it is being said about, I suggest that before we tar people in such a way that more evidence should be presented.

We are only hearing one side of the story, but it may be interesting to note the comment: " I even had to have a few of his commits reverted. ", it seems that there may have been some legitimacy to the other non-few if we are going to take a black and white view of things.

While the details on this matter seem very clear, the statement " I would work on something, go to bed, and wake up to find my work gone without any explanation." does not imply no discussion it implies that when she got up she had no idea of what was going on. It may be a case of a lazy co-worker, and/or a case that the co-worker discussed the issues with her at a latter stage.

She is very succinct in her description of the actions of others, and then describes her response in an emotional unclear way. In her own way in this example, she has used passive aggressiveness to mask the actual event.

TLDR; We do not know if there was no discussion, and we are only hearing one side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com