On Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 01:34 PM, Jim Porter wrote: > > On the bug itself is usually a good place for it. > > Not for a single bug, but for the whole app. I could file metabugs, but > those don't look any more important than any other bug, and don't really > have great ways of indicating the order that things should be done in.
Yeah, there can be serious discoverability issues with bugs like that. I've been putting markdown files in the source tree that explain how the system works now and what the vision/plan is. This could of course be combined with the bugzilla strategy, with the markdown file citing the bugs that track ongoing discussions about plans for various aspects. Andrew PS: Obviously, big blobs of documentation text in-tree (or on bugs) are subject to bit-rotting, just like any documentation is. I've talked with/read comments by people concerned by this fact, but in practice I've always found any/all documentation helpful when trying to understand codebases. Even bit-rotted intent and stale big pictures are significantly more useful than trying to guess intent and puzzle out overall data-flow from uncommented or barely commented code. _______________________________________________ dev-fxos mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-fxos
