Re: Release Cycle
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:28:44PM -0800, Ken Teague wrote:
> Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> > [...]
> > Doing it the second way does _not_ have to compromise any quality
> > standards.
> > (Why do you (seemingly) think it does?)
> Perhaps I wasn't understanding you correctly the first time around.
> Perhaps I'm still not understanding you this time around. Nevertheless,
> I'm only trying to help you out. If you don't want my help, I'll kindly
> step to the side and see if anyone else wants to step up to this plate.
Well, maybe I'll prove to be understanding neither of you, but the
point seems to be that you can't 'force' the maturity of a package.
Halving the seed rate in a field of wheat won't make the wheat ripen
twice as fast.
Chemicals can no doubt make wheat ripen a little faster and intense
activity by developers can remove bugs a little faster, but bugs
have to be found in the first place. The longer a package has been
in use, the more bugs will be found and, hopefully, eliminated.
If that's not a complete load of rubbish, quality will be improved
by longer release cycles.