On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com>
wrote:
>
> If a callout is warranted in the schedule, there should be several
> instances of “test, debug, document” throughout your timeline, but still
> not one big 2.5 week one at the end. That’d be breadth-first
> waterfall-style cleanup. It’s just not acceptable from a risk-management
> perspective, and essentially something we’ve learned to not even allow for
> GSoC.
>
> Not necessarily. For example if you issue a code freeze before doing a
version bump where you only accept bugfixes and don't accept any feature
improvements it doesn't mean you are using a waterfall model. Is the Linux
kernel development model a waterfall model? I would say it isn't.
I will change the planning timetable to work in the fashion you describe.
Vasco Alexandre da Silva Costa
PhD Student at Department of Information Systems and Computer Science
Instituto Superior Técnico/University of Lisbon, Portugal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
brlcad-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
