Skip to content

Rollback Analysis: What We'd Lose vs. What We'd Gain #302

@DerekRoberts

Description

@DerekRoberts

🔍 Rollback Analysis: Commit #268 vs. Current State

After our troubleshooting attempts failed to resolve the pinning issues, we're considering a rollback to commit #268 (August 26) to restore a working configuration.

📊 What We'd Lose (Additional commits since #268):

🚫 Broken/Problematic Features (Good to Lose):

⚠️ Potentially Valuable Features (Might Want to Keep):

🔧 Infrastructure Improvements:

💡 Recovery Strategy:

Since the PRs still exist, we can selectively cherry-pick the valuable features back after restoring the working configuration. This gives us:

  1. Immediate stability - Working configuration restored
  2. Selective recovery - Bring back only the features that actually work
  3. Clean slate - No more broken functionality to troubleshoot

🎯 Next Steps:

  1. Get some sleep - This has been painful and frustrating
  2. Rollback to refactor: simplify prerelease blocking rule #268 - Restore working configuration (August 26 state)
  3. Assess what to recover - Cherry-pick valuable features one by one
  4. Test each addition - Ensure we don't break what's working again

📝 Key Lesson:

When we have a working configuration, we should be much more cautious about making changes. The working setup from August 26 was probably simpler and more reliable than what we've built since.

🔄 Final Rollback Target:

Rolling back to #268 would lose about 40+ commits but most are failed experiments. The working configuration from August 26 should be much more stable than what we have now.

Commit #268 was a simple prerelease blocking rule simplification - minimal, working change that gives us a solid foundation.


Updated after deciding to rollback to commit #268 (August 26)

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

Status

Done

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions