Original Summary

​ I'm building a tool and want to sanity-check the problem with the people who pay for engineering time. Situation I keep seeing: a customer reports a bug, someone reproduces it, it gets escalated L1 > L2 > dev, an engineer digs through logs, code and the database to find the cause, writes it up, then finally fixes it. A lot of senior engineering time goes into the investigation, not the fix. I'm building Rootlence to take on that investigation work across L1, L2 and L3 support and propose the fix. A human approves before anything goes to production. It's meant to multiply the capacity of the engineers you already have, not replace them. The first MVP will be ready in the next few days, and I'm looking for a few teams to try it. What I'd love to know: Roughly how many engineer-hours does a typical production bug take from report to fix, and how much of that is investigation? Who does that investigation today, and what does that time cost you or take away from roadmap work? If a tool did the first pass of investigation and showed its evidence, would you trust it enough to review the fix? What would stop you? What would you consider a fair price for something like this, per seat or per usage? Honest question: is this a real problem for you, or a nice-to-have? Disclosure: I'm the founder of Rootlence. Blunt answers, including "we'd never buy this", help me most.   submitted by   /u/Shreeintech [link]   [comments]

  • 情报分类：服务器与云资源
  • 分类依据：内容涉及服务器、云资源或网络线路
  • 信息来源：Reddit · SaaS
  • 发布时间：2026/10/14 04:27:14