# Review rollback readiness beyond reverting application code

Canonical: https://githtml.com/guides/review-rollback-readiness
Published: 2026-09-26
Publisher: WaveTech LLC / gitHtml

A rollback review asks what an earlier version can safely resume after a newer version has run. Examine stored data, configuration, external effects, and compatibility as well as application code. Require evidence for recovery prerequisites, and distinguish a proposed rollback plan from a procedure the team has actually rehearsed.

## Identify what the release changes permanently

An illustrative release might introduce a new record format while keeping the same public interface. Reverting the application binary would not automatically convert records back. List schema changes, background jobs, generated artifacts, outbound notifications, and configuration changes that outlive the process. Google's canary-release discussion provides context for managing rollout risk, but controlled exposure does not make every change reversible. Ask which effects can be undone, which require repair, and which cannot be recalled. Keep those categories visible instead of hiding them behind a single rollback available label.

## Test compatibility as a question

For the illustrative record change, ask whether the older version can read newly written records and whether newer workers can still process older queued jobs. Request source or test evidence for those claims. Identify the restoration prerequisites, the age and scope of any relevant recovery material, and the authority required to use it. Do not restore data or change production as part of merely reviewing the plan. A recovery rehearsal should have its own approved environment, procedure, and recorded result.

1. State: list persistent changes and external effects beyond the code revision.
2. Compatibility: verify old readers, new writes, queued work, and configuration.
3. Authority: identify the decision owner, stop conditions, and recovery prerequisites.

## Write a qualified readiness conclusion

A sound conclusion might say application rollback is documented but data compatibility remains unverified. That is more informative than either a blanket approval or an unsupported alarm. Link unresolved issues to owners and explain which ones block release readiness. Include the exact versions and rehearsal date in the HTML packet so a mobile reader can assess relevance. Keep operational commands in the controlled runbook rather than copying them into every review summary. gitHtml displays the prepared document; it does not perform rollback checks or execute recovery actions.

## Sources and further reading

- [Google SRE Workbook: Canarying Releases](https://sre.google/workbook/canarying-releases/)
- [Google SRE: Effective Troubleshooting](https://sre.google/sre-book/effective-troubleshooting/)

## Related guides

- [Trace data flow through a technical review document](https://githtml.com/guides/trace-data-flow-in-technical-review)
- [Review a PostgreSQL query-plan report safely](https://githtml.com/guides/review-postgresql-query-plan-report)
- [Review performance claims without being fooled by one fast run](https://githtml.com/guides/review-performance-claims-with-distributions)
- [Review test coverage by reading assertions, not percentages](https://githtml.com/guides/review-test-coverage-by-assertions)

Editorial approach: https://githtml.com/guides/about