“Lost momentum due to legacy branch rot and shifting contracts —-> reset work from master to regain control.”
This day was a reminder that in large codebases, what you inherit matters more than how fast you code.
While testing a pipeline, I discovered that the API contracts had changed. The working branch handed over during KT hadn’t been synced with master for months—something that was never communicated. I had assumed the branch was clean and built on top of it, investing real effort before reality surfaced.
When I tried to reverse-merge from master, the truth became unavoidable: conflicts everywhere, structural drift, and assumptions baked deep into the code. Salvaging it would cost more than restarting.
So I made the call that feels painful but is often correct:
abandon the branch, reset from master, and rebuild.
The irony? Once the foundation was correct, a large part of the actual task was straightforward and could be completed quickly. The delay wasn’t complexity—it was branch hygiene debt.
The hidden cost showed up elsewhere too:
- duplicated work
- wasted Cursor tokens
- frustration from redoing avoidable effort
- and, worst of all, a perception forming that I was “over-designing” instead of executing
Standup felt awkward. Progress wasn’t visible. In hindsight, the mistake wasn’t resetting—it was not escalating early enough. Silence leaves space for narratives you don’t control.
This day marked a shift in mindset.
Respecting existing work is important—but correctness and system integrity come first. From here on, validating assumptions, checking branch freshness, and calling out blockers early aren’t overhead. They’re core engineering work.
Survival in code-first big tech isn’t about pushing harder.
It’s about knowing when to stop, reset, and protect the foundation.
Top comments (0)