On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Adam Roach <a...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 5/3/18 12:18 PM, Nicholas Alexander wrote: >> >> Not all features are feasible to ship behind feature flags. > > > I'm pretty sure the proposed policy isn't intended to change anything > regarding features that ship without associated feature flags, nor is it > trying to get more features to ship behind flags than currently do. It's > just trying to rationalize a single, more managable process for those that > *do* ship behind flags. > > /a
I agree that not every single feature is appropriate to ship behind a feature flag, since the cost to maintain parallel implementations can be huge, and has implications on things like the size of the application and updates. In addition, if you look at e10s/stylo/webrender we've set up parallel testing infrastructure, which needs to be maintained for quite a while even after we've enabled the feature. We did however consider the benefits to be worth the complexity for even the very large and complex projects mentioned above, and there are many downsides and risks to not using a phased roll-out approach (which can be done without feature flags), so I'd be interested in continuing this discussion in a separate thread. For this specific proposal, the only change I'd suggest is that we should move away from the term "Pref Flip" in favor of "Feature Flag", since (as evidenced in this thread so far) the latter is the more standard industry term. I also think there's an argument to be made that the pref system on Firefox Desktop is not the right system for implementing feature flags in general, but I'll leave that for a separate thread as well. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
