The sentence you quoted seems ambiguous to me, since (from what I understood reading the article) there are two separate storage mechanisms using the new feature. The two possible beliefs the engineer may have had are:
1. Since we tested the change on a subset of A for a few weeks, we can assume it will work for all of A.
2. Since we tested the change on a subset of A for a few weeks, we can assume it will work for all of A and all of B.
#1 seems reasonable, but #2 is what needed to hold true in order for there to be no problems, since the change was actually enabled for all of A and B.
But was the engineer actually advocating to enable the change in B, or was that an accident during the manual deployment?
Comments
The sentence you quoted seems ambiguous to me, since (from what I understood reading the article) there are two separate storage mechanisms using the new feature. The two possible beliefs the engineer may have had are:
1. Since we tested the change on a subset of A for a few weeks, we can assume it will work for all of A.
2. Since we tested the change on a subset of A for a few weeks, we can assume it will work for all of A and all of B.
#1 seems reasonable, but #2 is what needed to hold true in order for there to be no problems, since the change was actually enabled for all of A and B.
But was the engineer actually advocating to enable the change in B, or was that an accident during the manual deployment?
I don't agree with your possible beliefs. What about:
3. Since we tested this change on a subset of A and a subset of B, we can assume it will work for all of A and all of B.