I’ve seen Jira be the source of truth for user stories related to changes. It was neat at first because you could track why something was changed and what it was supposed to do, and even have a user confirm it’s working the way they expected (I hate when bugs are closed because the dev thinks it’s fixed but it actually isn’t). The ticket would point to source or git log if you wanted more detail.
Sadly it developed from a tiny, quick, useful note to a documentation slog when a new project manager joined and wanted a long description of everything typed into the ticket. So I ended up killing Jira altogether.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to explain to the project manager that there were costs associated with documenting the minutiae, get them onboard and continue to use the system that has worked for you? (Genuine question, not a rhetorical one)
I thought so, but I wasn’t successful. I’m not sure how much was just someone new trying to change stuff and someone who really believes in writing tons of stuff.
I don’t think the problem was jira, it’s just in project management thinking that it is the most important part and the dev work is subservient or easy.
Sadly it developed from a tiny, quick, useful note to a documentation slog when a new project manager joined and wanted a long description of everything typed into the ticket. So I ended up killing Jira altogether.