zlacker

Is adding a feature-flag really the same as pushing the feature into the browser immediately? It can easily just be part of a SWE needing the flag in place in order to continue work without impacting anything else, even if that thing never ever launches.

In general Google engineers don't tend to work on branches, especially long-running ones. Incremental small code reviews are the expectation. The general process would be to stick things securely behind flags and continue development without turning it on, even if it never ever launches.

Not saying this work should be done -- it shouldn't -- but code being pushed is not the same as "we're going to make this happen tomorrow, no matter what."

>>cmrdpo+(OP)
Yes, because a feature flag shows intent to implement it before any real discussion have taken place with privacy and non-corporate security advocates.

>>cmrdpo+(OP)
> Is adding a feature-flag really the same as pushing the feature into the browser immediately?

"Don't mind me guys, I'm barely boiling the frog."

>>cmrdpo+(OP)
When was the last time you heard Google or anything Google-related backing down from getting their paws in deeper? It's no longer a fallacy when there's a sign next to the slippery slope.

>>cmrdpo+(OP)
> Is adding a feature-flag really the same as pushing the feature into the browser immediately? It can easily just be part of a SWE needing the flag in place in order to continue work without impacting anything else, even if that thing never ever launches.

Yes, because that's a such anti-consumer issue. It shouldn't exist in the first place, it should never be merged to master. There's no reason to not keep it on a separate branch if you don't intend to use it.

>>cmrdpo+(OP)
Companies don't usually make a habit of having their employees work on something they don't intend to pursue.

>>BlargM+A
https://killedbygoogle.com/

>>duerra+P
I wish that were true in corporate America! Think of all of the waste that would eliminate.

>>cmrdpo+(OP)
What you think they push the flag without the intention to make it happen?

>>jvolkm+F1
That’s backing down from responsibility not from doing the wrong thing.

We can add www to the list.

>>nullin+t2
Yeah but then you also have to think about all the jobs that would be lost.

>>BlargM+A
I worked in that code base. Things were feature flagged then murdered all the time.

>>gmerc+T9
Because I worked at Google. People get tasked on working on things that get killed later all the time.

Don't underestimate how much money they have to burn and how incompetent upper management is at making hard decisions and planning.

>>duerra+P
Yes, they actually do. Or rather, there is no "company", there are thousands of different decision makers.

My point is that at some other company (e.g. Apple) it would be done in secret on a branch somewhere, then big-bang merged later.

Google's process doesn't tend to work that way.

>>Xelbai+B
Honestly, if the work is going to be done (again it should not be done), I'd rather have it out in the open.