On 08/12/2010 01:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>>>> "BN" == Bill Nottingham<notting@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> BN> I can't help but note that the slips have become more frequent as we >> BN> started to actually *have* release criteria to test against. We >> BN> didn't slip nearly as much when we weren't testing it. >> >> To me this implies that we should begin testing earlier (or, perhaps, >> never stop testing) and treat any new failure as an event of >> significance. It's tough to meet a six month cycle if we spend half of >> it telling people to expect everything to be broken. >> > Possibly also stop changing earlier? It's hard to test a moving target. > > Would an 8[1] month cycle cause fewer slips per release? Fewer bugs? > > -Mike > > [1] Just picked some number slightly longer then the current cycle for > purposes of discussion, not suggesting it. I think that will turn into 10 quickly. I advocate rigorous testing, and sticking as close to 6 as we can. I mean, if we have to slip because of a nasty blocker, yeah, slip, of course. But I don't see how a slip decreases the user experience. Quite the opposite. Plus, I love the comment that was made, about always doing 2 releases a year, and that they each take 7 months. That makes my brain giggle. :) And the thing is, it's not wrong. :) -J -- - in your fear, speak only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
