[_asummers]

It's also possible that all the fixes for this were declined by management in the interest of time. If you have a system you can quickly patch suboptimally to get the larger fire lowered, I can see the decision being made to do so. That's clearly irresponsible on management if that choice was made, considering the problem they were dealing with at the time, but if the decision is between "not finishing" and "these few systems still have bugs", I can rationalize it.

[toyg]

> That's clearly irresponsible on management

It is not irresponsible to use temporary fixes in the face of a hard deadline - what is irresponsible is not going back post-deadline to deal with them with a long-term view. Unfortunately, bonuses typically don't get paid for long-term results...

[Leherenn]

Even then, is it? If the choice is between having a major restructuring which results in breaking compatibility and similar once, or kicking the can every 20 years with a minimal patch; I can certainly see the later being the rational decision.

[buran77]

It just so happens that 20 years later both the engineer and the manager have moved on and you find about the patch you needed when your production goes down. And even the corner cutting rarely implies just a "minimal" patch anyway.