[vanderreeah]

Pedantic notice: an utter dearth of counterproductive features would seem to be a good thing rather than a problem.

[code_duck]

I was confused by that, too. I have a problem with the word ‘dearth’ in that I can often not remember whether it means an abundance or scarcity. So I looked it up, and found that it means scarcity. Perhaps GP makes the same mistake I do and misused dearth to mean abundance?

[adrianratnapala]

Yes, it means scarcity and the GP used it to mean abundance.

My mnemonic is that "dearth" looks like "death".

[Terr_]

I suspect they meant more like "profusion."

[IncRnd]

As they say - less is more.

[crankylinuxuser]

As another systems engineer, I'd much rather have clearly delineated features and how to interconnect them, rather than a cornucopia of disparate and badly documented "features".

I'm thinking of the class of "Does:X, Y, Z" but Z requires unstated dependency of A and C, and C requires you to have a specific database organization type that was asked at the initialization of the system. And there would be no hint that you had to choose the DB type, and how that would have ramifications 10 steps down the line.

Going back, what I'd rather have is more in line with the Unix philosophy. Do something and do it well. Let me connect somethings to other somethings. But Gitlab is a cathedral, and disorganized at that.

[kevinherron]

I think you're missing the point as well; "dearth" is a lack of. A lack of counter-productive features is a good thing.