Declaration of scope
I never see in public git projects something like a declaration of scope. There's also no convention, unlike a README.md (which rarely contains some sort of scope definition) or LICENSE file.
Is this unusual in open source projects, that you first define what you want and not want in your project and how you want to do it, to combat scope creep and sabotaging yourself?
I'm in a postition in live (short of a burnout) where it's actively a pain to just start things and then wing it; i even add a scope comment to larger shell scripts.
Maybe it's experience, because i already know that i'm then not satisfied afterward or (in case of shell scripts) just create a unfinished mess.
Nobody else? Or am i looking for the wrong term?
12 replies
Some projects include in the readme some mentions of goals and non-goals. And I also think it is pretty sane and transparent for both the mantainers and the users that these explanations exist.
Yeah, but some do and it's not usual.
I rarely even add readmes or licences, I like writing code, not polishing it.
As software engineers, an SRS doc is a very good friend of ours. just create a standard SRS doc and link to it in the readme.
I always start my projects with the SRS
Yeah, that looks interesting, thanks!
Might also be a product of experience, that you have a need for strict scope definitions.
When I was unexperienced, I would actively look for projects I could do and features to add to them. Because well, most project ideas were too large for me to tackle anyways and I needed the experience.
Now that I have experience, I have multiple long-term projects that could use some love, if I find the time. And I have the experience to tackle virtually any project idea, if I find the time.
Don't particularly want to add another long-term project into the rotation, so I do spend a lot more time thinking upfront "when will this be finished?".
I haven't done this, but I think this idea is going to stick with me going forward
Great, i hope it helps you.
I'd also would love to see it more in the wild, as a kind of measure of what to expect.
I always start with defining requirements, and then I follow with a bunch of pseudo code. Its how I do things at work too. I like getting the ideas and structure out before I write any actual code or I get stupidly distracted.
Same here. Just wondering why there is no format/convention for that, since we can't be the only ones.
No, but maybe its an experience thing - have to be burned enough times by not having something to want to have something?
I think a lot of projects start off just someone goofing around with an idea so no hard requirements to start. I do that when I'm learning something new but they aren't ambitious or worth sharing.
Yeah but then i sit on the toilet and think "wait, then i would have to consider this and that" and then rather jot it down.