On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:04:55PM +0000, James Freer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Having some experience with timing development cycles in agile/scrum, the > > problem with a longer release cycle is that the amount of work bitten off > > grows to match, and you end up with the same scramble on a bigger scale, > > actually making the problem worse rather than better. > I wasn't suggesting a bi-annual release... but an annual one. I've I'm not telling you what you're suggesting. I assume you know that already. :) I'm telling you about an alternate proposal that was seriously floated recently. That proposal involves 2-year major release cycles, with point releases continuing at a 6-month cadence. The annual release (or 9 month cycle, or whatever) idea still runs into the problem I stated above: it tends towards even *more* too-much-to-do crammed into the cycle. The fundamental problem is that estimating future work is hard and we (humans, not Fedora in specific) are terrible at it. In fact, we're as bad at estimating effort in hindsight as we are for the future. Estimating over larger timeframes just makes the problem bigger. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
