Paul writes:
> A. "Ship it" ... Include the feature, even though it only half-works.
> B. "Next release" ... Leave it out, and release it when it Just Works.
> C. "Stall" ... Hold this release indefinitely, until it Just Works.
>
>That's the $64,000 question -- A or B or C? With arguments, if you please.
>:-)
Well, here's my tale, though many already know it. My opinions differ
slightly, yet significantly from Paul's. I'm mostly in the "B" camp, but
with some special exceptions-
"A" is simply not acceptable. However, I'd apply some metric to the feature
to see if it worked "acceptably." Acceptably might be 99.99% but not 100%.
Few things will ever pass this metric, though I believe that it's important
to evaluate each on a feature-by-feature basis.
"B" has its merits. Things need to get prioritized, moved up, back, etc...
Things should get released when they work *and* meet a set of
pre-established criteria, such as a feature matrix or roadmap, milestone,
etc... It is _extremely_ important to have such milestones, requirements
gathering, specs, etc... so that one knows what he/she is working toward,
and what exactly has been decided to be considered a "X.Y.Z" release.
"C" also has its merits, depending on the percieved value/importance of the
feature. Some things are simply worth holding up a release cycle for.
Granted, not a whole lot of things make this category, but some quite
important things can and eventually will. And I'm all in favor of making
accomodations, where appropriate. Again, I use the metric & case-by-case
example as in "A"
Feel free to disagree, but "With arguments, if you please.:-)"
Dom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
