This is the most logical, sensible comment in the thread. Jira is the most flexible system for workflow management in existence. The fact that it is extensible is "a feature, not a bug."
I don't see really see anyone stating obvious truths about bad developers & software engineers (as shocking as it may be to read on HN that there are, in fact, objectively bad developers & software engineers with high-paying jobs at companies whose names you know.)
- they are more interested in making a new thing instead of fixing a broken thing they released
- they often can't remember how they built the last new thing
- that's because they aren't interested in building & documenting a fully working thing with test code from the start
- they aren't interested in data structures or architecture built to be easily maintained or in making scale part of their designs
- they despise being told to fix bugs because it is much easier to write code than it is to read it
I believe some organizations implement Jira thinking it is going to solve their cultural problems. This is magical thinking.
I am so tired of hearing about how terrible Jira is from developers.
It's usually the case that where Jira isn't working it has to do with the way it's configured (e.g., giving too many people access to set priority, setting too many priorities, setting too many components, using components in illogical ways, no one actively managing & grooming queues...)
To implement Jira successfully probably requires more work & effort to get it right than to not use it at all. The point of it is not to eliminate the work of issue tracking. It is to organize the workflow management of moving incredibly complex information from one person to the next. It's pretty great at this if you know how to use it.
I completely agree and I hope I explicitly mentioned it in the article: it's not Jira, it's about how people/organizations often think about the problem.
I don't see really see anyone stating obvious truths about bad developers & software engineers (as shocking as it may be to read on HN that there are, in fact, objectively bad developers & software engineers with high-paying jobs at companies whose names you know.)
- they are more interested in making a new thing instead of fixing a broken thing they released
- they often can't remember how they built the last new thing
- that's because they aren't interested in building & documenting a fully working thing with test code from the start
- they aren't interested in data structures or architecture built to be easily maintained or in making scale part of their designs
- they despise being told to fix bugs because it is much easier to write code than it is to read it
I believe some organizations implement Jira thinking it is going to solve their cultural problems. This is magical thinking.
I am so tired of hearing about how terrible Jira is from developers.
It's usually the case that where Jira isn't working it has to do with the way it's configured (e.g., giving too many people access to set priority, setting too many priorities, setting too many components, using components in illogical ways, no one actively managing & grooming queues...)
To implement Jira successfully probably requires more work & effort to get it right than to not use it at all. The point of it is not to eliminate the work of issue tracking. It is to organize the workflow management of moving incredibly complex information from one person to the next. It's pretty great at this if you know how to use it.