Non-political crazy things uncovered in Twitter whistleblower report
twitter.com
twitter.com
It's legitimately difficult to imagine any software architecture running smoothly like this, much less a highly successful product with hundreds of engineers working on it...
It's necessarily criminal, but it seems everyone's suspicions about Twitter's codebase is being proven right in media res.
I'm not saying the situation wasn't bad, but the quote doesn't tell us much without explaining how did it work instead. There's a lot of huge projects with only production environment. Probably more than people are comfortable thinking of.
What I've seen work in the past is that you develop your changes locally, run a local instance of whatever service you're changing, but local instance is backed by stateful layers in prod.
Feature flags are ingrained in the culture, and you'll be expected to do things like gate your code to some small set of users at first. Employees are a good option, or test users created in prod if you're especially wary of your changes.
I only know of this leading to one SEV, where the feature flags broke in such a way that everything was suddenly enabled for everyone.
At some point, creating a second copy of prod is infeasible or becomes so expensive that one must revisit and discard assumptions about what is actually possible. Duplicating a small to medium set of micro services with a bunch of SaaS integrations isn’t typically a big deal. Much can be done by leveraging a cloud provider’s flexible capacity. At some point that stops working, e.g. when you are the cloud provider. AWS isn’t outsourcing reliability to GCP or vice versa. Other comments have already mentioned outages driven by differences between prod and staging/testing/etc — those issues only get worse at scale.
You will of course end up with some bugs that can't (for mysterious reasons) be exactly replicated in each environment. That is not the same thing.
This seems like a failure of the corporate model in general. 'Everyone knows' the CEO/dictator/monarch is unable to function, but senior leaders cover it up (poorly), the board looks the other way, shareholders are deceived or at least kept ignorance, and the rabble (that's you) are confused at best and dismissed as crazy if they intuit the state of affairs correctly.
Why do we institutionalize such systems when the patterns of failure are so glaringly obvious and have been endlessly repeated?
Edit: Some people really failing to see the point here, which is that it's meaningless to suggest someone should be prosecuted without specifying why.