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?
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.