[jagged-chisel]

> … tested with multiple rounds of feedback and iteration, the PR is merged, your team’s related work is also done, and it is live in production and available to the users.

This article essentially wants perfection as a definition of “done.”

[AdityaAnand1]

Directionally, yes.

Part of my motivation for writing this was wondering what would be the solution to what I see as a lot of failed engineering careers of folks in 30s and 40s. I know a lot of them, genuinely great engineers - but somewhere down the line, their expectations of their life shifted, but what they did with their time did not - resulting in dissatisfaction.

Hence, a suggestion to focus on the objective value being created vs. individual engineering tasks as a better barometer of progress.

[jagged-chisel]

I believe some of the objections (especially mine) are conflating your intent with Agile/Scrum "definition of done." Personally, and honestly as a humble suggestion, I would like to see this discrepancy in perception addressed in the article. Indeed, the problem is mine, but a minor nudge in the right direction would have changed my response immensely.

[rekabis]

I disagree. Testing with multiple rounds of feedback and iteration, with merging and related work done, with everything in production and available to the users is done, but is it perfect?

Not necessarily.

I see it as having dealt with all low-hanging fruit. Of handling anything reasonably expected at that point. Bugs will remain. Exploits will doubtless be found. But so long as all reasonable efforts were made to find and deal with them, that is good enough.

Because a perfect product will never be done.

And a done product cannot possibly ever be perfect.