Re: The slip down memory lane
On 08/12/2010 01:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
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.
I think that will turn into 10 quickly.
I advocate rigorous testing,
and sticking as close to 6 as we can. I mean, if we have to slip
because of a nasty blocker, yeah, slip, of course. But I don't see how
a slip decreases the user experience. Quite the opposite.
Plus, I love the comment that was made, about always doing 2 releases a
year, and that they each take 7 months. That makes my brain giggle. :)
And the thing is, it's not wrong. :)
-J
--
- in your fear, speak only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie