On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham
<notting(a)redhat.com> writes:
BN> I can't help but note that the slips have become more frequent as we
BN> started to actually *have* release criteria to test against. We
BN> didn't slip nearly as much when we weren't testing it.
To me this implies that we should begin testing earlier (or, perhaps,
never stop testing) and treat any new failure as an event of
significance. It's tough to meet a six month cycle if we spend half of
it telling people to expect everything to be broken.
Possibly also stop changing earlier? It's hard to test a moving target.
Would an 8[1] month cycle cause fewer slips per release? Fewer bugs?
-Mike
[1] Just picked some number slightly longer then the current cycle for
purposes of discussion, not suggesting it.