What if you treat a postmortem like it’s an easy to fix when it’s hard to understand? I think you gotta for sure know what the cause was cuz you could think you did a good postmortem and the cause is unaddressed. It could be worse cuz now it’s going to be ingnored more. The postmortem “addressed” it
Can you start with easy postmortems? What kinds are those? It would be good to start there. I think tho it’s hard to for sure know if an error is going to be deep or not. Still I think you could get some practice working on the easy postmortems
If you do a quick and easy postmortem then you’ll find the cause of the error and make changes to prevent the errors. I wonder if how easy the postmortem is relates to how deep the error was.
The next sentence after the quote above:
those quick and easy postmortems don’t have to be a big deal. That or the errors aren’t a big deal. idk
I think I run into the cause of the error being hard to understand but mostly cuz I don’t get the concept of something causing an error.
What would make an error’s cause hard to understand or fix? I think hard to understand would look like getting to the bottom of what’s causing the error. Like, it may seem more than one thing is causing the error when it’s not. It would be hard to decide in that scenario. There’s a whole thing about correlation does not equal causation so that’s something important to be aware of.
How would it look like for it to be hard to fix the cause of an error? I think if you change something it could mess up other things. Like, in coding. What if the cause is really deep? I think how deep an error is is the right topic to talk about.