On 11/09/2012 09:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
We just just have feature submission deadline, feature approval
>deadline, then we work on approved features until they are done and then
>give releng/marketing x time to prepare for release. that means we can
>have 5 month release cycle or 7 or 9 month release cycle which gives us
>the flexibility to integrate features properly into the release before
>delivering into the hands of our end users and we don't have to worry
>about "contingency plans" anymore
Well, both models have been in use in the software industry for decades,
and there are generally agreed pros and cons to both. The biggest cons
of feature-based schedules are that the release cycles tend to get
longer and longer because no-one feels any urgency to ship and instead
just start packing in more and more features, and that users don't have
a reliable schedule to follow in planning their deployments. Of course,
if we delay our supposedly-time-based-releases too much and too often,
we can wind up with all the cons of both approaches and none of the
pros...
I'm pretty sure we can bring fourth the whip if that turns out to be the
case or simply say that an release can be no longer then X months or a
full year and the only one way we can find out is to take the leap for 3
releases and if feature-based release is not the case we scrap it and
return back to the time-based one or merge the experience from both and
come up with some kind of hybrid between both of these
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
