I had thought of the case for <title/> but basically out of laziness talked myself out of writing a separate test case for it, presuming the test cases for a zero-length title and an un-closed title covered the corner cases. (The entire document was guaranteed to be converted to valid UTF-8, perhaps with invalid character substitution characters, by that late in the Content Converter pipeline.)
So, as soon as someone asked me if I had changed the title parsing code, I was 50% sure of which corner case I had screwed up before looking at any code. It took me about 30 minutes to submit a code fix with updated test cases. I think less than 1 billion documents had been processed, resulting in less than 1,000 pages missing updates due to my bug.
I guess there is some pressure/tiredness/newness/taste/external factors driving the choices, test count, and style guide aberrations.
I think it was an issue of familiarity and comfort, not newness. The author joined Google before I did. If you're basically working with one other person, and you're rarely getting code reviews from outside your coding pair, and few other people interact with your code, it's easy to develop some bad habits and forget that your code choices have externalities. To be fair, the externalities were usually rather small.
One can never, however, be sure that someone really feels that way ("The secret to success is sincerity - once you can fake that, you've got it made!") Nevertheless, faking it involves never saying certain things, and that turns out to be hard, so the fallible approach that I aspire to is to assume sincerity unless given evidence to the contrary.
In this view, blameless postmortems are the right way to go, at least up to a point: neither embarrassment nor regret are things that can truly be imposed from outside, and definitely not sincerity.
But culture isn't a magic tool that completely neutralizes assholes, and there are assholes in _every_ organization of sufficient size, like the "[name redacted]" character in the previous post
Edit: I should point out that we were in Google NYC, as were the researchers. We had lunch with them some times. I remember the first name and face of the guy who submitted the slow code, but forget his family name and intentionally left his name out.
New Yorker to New Yorker adds a lot of context. Google's corporate culture is generally very Californian, but this happened all within the New York office between people who generally got along pretty well and knew each other decently.
In context, there was a heavy note of respect for someone's abilities and disappointment that they weren't performing at a top level. He wouldn't have been so harsh with someone who was new or was a weaker engineer, or someone who wasn't used to New York culture.
As a lifelong Californian who moved to NY, this makes sense.
Though I don't know if it's a blanket excuse... There's a reason that my friends at Goldman would agree that Google's culture is better, and a lot of it has to do with the difference between CA and NY culture. I completely dismiss the claims that the difference is just about surface-level abrasiveness, instead of noticeable differences in how unkindly people treat each other. I regularly see strangers here treat each other in ways that I didn't see in 30+ years in California.
Ie, "he's from New York" isn't quite a rebuttal to "he's being an asshole at work". The work culture is more tolerant of assholes, but that barely makes it better.
