On 6/17/15, Eran Rosenthal <eranroz89(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Sometimes programmers waste their time for
implementing
non-useful/non-important features, but sometimes such features aren't just
not useful, but harmful.[1; you are more than welcome to convince me
otherwise]
Both developers, designers and project managers should always ask
themselves why do we need such feature before going to implement it and
should be able to convince others on the motivation for it.
I think that sometimes we fail… (and sometimes even in the "postmortem"
step[1]) The question is how can Wikimedia foundation improve the process?
For large changes there are already reviews and RFC on mediawiki wiki, but
for smaller ones it is sometimes missed (and even phabricator ticket).
Should any feature should be associated with phab task?[2]
Eranroz
-----
Well its no doubt its true that feature creep is a thing, and
unnecessary features are harmful (and harmful in long term not
immediately ways). The bug more reads you got in a dispute about if a
particular feature is in scope for VE. Establishing whether a specific
feature is useful seems to be somewhat orthogonal to establishing
general practises to reduce feature creep. General practices should be
based on generalizations about many bugs/features, not one specific
thread about one specific feature which could very easily have
arguments made in either direction about its appropriateness.
Should any feature should be associated with phab
task?[2]
I don't think absolutes are good. And I don't see much point of having
a phab ticket for a small feature where nothing is needed to be
tracked for implementation or anything else. If issues arise and
something needs to be tracked, then phab tickets can be opened later.
That's not to say small features shouldn't be challanged. By all means
challange them, but if there's no phab ticket open yet, its easy to
open a new one. Ultimately though, phab is not the place for extended
debate (imo. OTOH people want to use it for everything now a days).
--bawolff