On Friday 05 March 2004 03:59 am, Alexander Larsson wrote: > That is very much not true. Do you think we should be doing nothing but > bug work? Any software *always* have bugs, so that would mean we'd > *never* do any feature work or any other kind of important work. We'd > ship a piece of stagnant software (if we ever got our noses out of > bugzilla to spend time actually shipping it). A bugfree version of a 10 > year old piece of software. Nobody wants that. Actually, if I were given the choice between more features (with more bugs) versus less features (and less bugs) for mission-critical work, I will choose the less bugs every time. If a feature is delayed by bugfixing, that is a good thing. If fixing a bug is delayed due to feeping creaturism, then somebody's priorities are askew. Yes, features need to be worked on. No, developers already pressed for time shouldn't be always in bugfixing mode. But data destroying or serious usability bugs should always trump feature additions, which bring in their own new bugs, creating a vicious cycle of where developers feel like they're drowning in a sea of bugs. Is reducing the number of bugs that cause people to use something else not a worthy goal? Use some moderation. Or take a page from the developer book of Tom Lane, who has nearly singlehandedly made PostgreSQL one of the least bugridden databases on the planet. Yet he finds time for feature work. It's all about balance. Assuming that new features is better than less bugs is the Microsoft Way. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
