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.
Cheers,
David
Reply to: