Of course, it was a bit of hyperbole. It's meant as an illustration. I agree that there should be a centralized place to track, prioritize, and allocate work.

Of course, it was a bit of hyperbole. It's meant as an illustration. I agree that there should be a centralized place to track, prioritize, and allocate work. But the comment I was responding to was about having a ticket for every code change, which is absurd if you take it to the extreme. If I'm working on feature X, but come across a typo, do I have to have a ticket to fix the typo or can I just fix it as I go along? Again, we are taking things to the extreme in the examples. In a sane workflow, someone prioritizes a list of tasks, someone (hopefully the group) divides up the tasks, and then we work on them one at a time. All of that is in a central place and developers generally don't have a problem tracking like that. But what about the case where you find a bug (especially a small one)? In larger teams you probably want to indicate that you fixed something so that the testing team can have something to verify against. In a small team you just fix it and go on without the overhead of making a ticket for every one of those you discover. An example from today. I just came across some code that was "unless @blah.blank?", but it should probably be turned around to "if @blah.present?", so I made the change. If I had to write a ticket for that I would quickly want to strangle someone. And that's what the original comment I responded to seemed to be asking about.