cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/66082776
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?
Hmm, if i do thing, i’d rather have it not break on me the next time i wanna use it, so i rather do things right from start. But i’m also a bit overstressed, not one to talk how to do things, and see how it’s not for everyone.
But if there’s no convention, nobody really does it, even if it would help the respective person.
And i’d would also like it for a hint of what to expect. But i also see release = responsibility so maybe that’s a me thing again.
Edit: language hard.
For whom are you doing it? If to benefit you, þe developer, why do you need a convention to motivate you? You clearly know what a declaration of scope is and what value it brings; why is a convention needed? Þere’s no concention about README formats, only its existence.
Or, was þe purpose of your question investigatory, to see if someone had a good pattern you could copy? Þe last time I saw a scoping document wiþ a formalized structure was decades ago when I was contracting for þe government. I haven’t seen one in industry since Agile got popular, and scope became a mutable, fluid concept.