[baq]

Or... see them for what they are: runtime configuration. The name implies a use case scenario, but in reality it's just a configuration knob. With a good UI, it's a pretty damn convenient way to do runtime configuration.

So of course they'll be used for long-term configuration purposes, especially under pressure and for gradual rollouts of whole systems, not just A/B testing features.

[rubicon33]

This hits the nail on the head.

The term "feature flag" has come to inherently have a time component because features are supposed to eventually be fulled GA'd.

What I've seen in practice is feature flags are never removed so a better way to think about them is as a runtime configuration.

[dasil003]

I think the reason feature flags are never removed is because the timeframe that a given feature-flag is top-of-mind is also when it's at its most useful. Later when it's calcified in place and the off-state may be broken/atrophied, no one is really thinking about it.

I'm also not convinced it's always a huge problem. I can imagine sometimes it is, but in most codebases I've worked on, it's more of an annoyance but not cracking the top 3 or 5 biggest problems we wanted to focus on.

IMHO the best solution is not something heavy handed like a policy that we only use run-time config for fixed timeframes, or a process where we regularly audit and prune old flags. It's simply to keep a record of the config changes over time so anyone interested can see the history, and a culture where every engineer is encouraged to take a little extra time to verify and remove dead stuff whenever it crosses their path .

[patrick451]

The mental overhead of reading code like this is massive. Leaving feature flags in with the alternate branch left to rot leads to a codebase that is nearly impossible to understand. No purpose is served by not deleting the now unused branch except you save one developer an afternoon of work. But that time is quickly recouped when the entire team, and especially new hires, only have half as much code to understand.

[ignoramous]

> What I've seen in practice is feature flags are never removed so a better way to think about them is as a runtime configuration.

SaaS won't sell itself unless it redefines the problem and presents itself as a solution...

[mabbo]

There is a need for runtime configurations, yes, but it's important to put them behind an interface intended for that, and not one intended for something else.

[baq]

I can immediately see if the config is being requested, which system requests it, what are the metadata of the request, etc. I can do conditional rollout of a configuration based on runtime data. I can reset the configuration to a know-good failsafe default without asking for approval with a break-glass button. I can schedule a rollout and get a reviewer for the config change.

IME the feature flag interface is next to perfect for runtime configuration. I don't care for intended usage at all. You could say feature flags have found a great product-market fit, just that a segment of the market is a bit unexpected but makes perfect sense if you think about it.

[NBJack]

This gets messy at larger scales, both as teams grow and software grows.

Resetting to a know failsafe works as long ask the risk of someone changing a backend service (or, multiple services) at the same time is low. Once it isn't, you can most definitely do more damage (and make life harder for oncall).

Who controls the runtime config? One person? Half a dozen? One hundred plus? Is it being gated by approvals, or can anyone do it? What about auditability? If something does go wrong, how easily can I rule out you turning on that flag?

Finally there is simply the sheer permutations you introduce here. A feature flag is binary in many cases: on or off. A config could be in any number of states.

These things make me nervous as an architect, and I've seen well intentioned changes fail when good flag discipline wasn't followed. Using it as fullblown runtime config seems like a postmortem waiting to happen.

[bertil]

I am tempted to agree: if separating the two is key (I’m not convinced that it is, but happy to assume) why not copy the interface and the infrastructure of the feature flag and offer it as a configuration tool.

I feel like you could easily add a status to flags, to mark whether they are part of a release process, or a permanent configuration tool, and in the latter case, take them off the release interfaces.

[monknomo]

I think unleash offers "toggle type" which can take values that describe whether it's a pure feature flag, something operation, config, etc.

[dastbe]

Could you expand on what you think the different interfaces should be? you keep stating that these things ought to be distinct but haven't explained why beyond dogma.

[hinkley]

Our FF system uses our config system as its system of record. There's some potential for misuse, and it's difficult to apply deadlines. On the plus side all our settings are captured in version control. Before they were spread out over several systems, one of which had an audit system that was pure tribal knowledge for years.

[gastonfournier]

The main challenge is when things go wrong. Feature flags are designed for high-rate evaluation with low latency responses. Configuration usually doesn't care that much about latency as it's usually read once at startup. This context leads to some very specific tradeoffs such as erring to availability over consistency, which in the case of configuration management could be a bad choice

[zellyn]

Yeah, and assuming they are done well, they probably have better analytics and insights attached to them than anything else except perhaps your experiments!