3 ms·
> If I hear that damn mantra again ... never take Minimum viable documentation But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all. Where on earth do you get
by commandlinefan 5y ago
> If I hear that damn mantra again ... never take Minimum viable documentation
But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all. Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto?
- tablespoon 5y ago>> If I hear that damn mantra again ... never take Minimum viable documentation > But... you're not doing it right. Like, not at all. Nope, sorry. You can't honestly say someone's doing it wrong, especially when "it" is defined so vaguely, or when "doing it wrong" seems to emerge from the document at least as much as "doing it right," if not more so. > Where on earth do you get "don't provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto? Where do you get "provide user manuals" from the agile manifesto"? The problem is that it's most easily read as a rejection of documentation, in general. That fault lies with the manifesto.
- RHSeeger 5y agoBecause people see this > Working software over comprehensive documentation and use it as a reason not to do documentation at all. It's ambiguous, and can clearly be read as "you should not work on documentation when there is software to work on", and there's always software to work on.