[somehnreader]

> Rolling our own dependency-management tooling took a small team of engineers (including me) more than a year of very hard work, and there were problems.

I am amazed what is done in large organisations sometimes. No one would ever sign off on me doing something like this. How do you convince the number crunchers that its a good thing to build things like this if there is no measurable outcome?

Not trying to be rude or devalue OPs work, but I haven't worked in an organisation that would allow for this in a long while.

[zaphar]

There are two factors at play here:

1. Larger organizations have bigger budgets they can allocate toward solving problems unique to that organization and the overhead they have built up that is unique to their particular way of working.

2. Most of the organizations that work on this type of thing don't require number cruncher approval. The number crunchers may track and report on these types of efforts but they don't control the decision making. If you are lucky enough to work at one of those be thankful.

[sclangdon]

In my experience - working solely for large organisations for the last 17 years - the number crunchers are almost always swayed by "it'll be better in the long run".

It rarely ever is, of course, but don't underestimate the will of a developer to push an interesting project that they know in their hearts will not really benifit the company.