The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken (was: Re: Heads Up - New Firefox update)
mitr at volny.cz
Mon Nov 1 17:51:32 UTC 2010
Adam Williamson píše v Po 01. 11. 2010 v 10:39 -0700:
> On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 18:29 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > It's better to try things, with the proviso that
> > > you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
> > It's even better not to dismiss known problems with the policy, and to
> > make sure the policy can handle them properly from the start. This was
> > not a surprise, this was an "unforced error".
> Sorry, but characterizing it as a 'known problem' is misleading. It's
> easy to forecast failure, and you'll likely always be correct in *some*
> cases if you forecast enough failures. Only if you precisely forecast
> only the failures that actually happen, and do not forecast any failures
> that don't happen, can your forecast be considered truly reliable.
The accuracy of prediction, and especially accuracy of the timing, is
not at all relevant. In fact, it is _preciselly_ the unknown nature of
risks that requires thinking about them in advance.
People don't wear helmets because they know when something will hit
their head, but because they don't know when, or even if, it will.
More information about the devel