The slip down memory lane

[Jon Ciesla]

  On 08/12/2010 01:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham<notting at 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