Yes, Eric and the amount of qa needed is less as well. Bare with me for a little rant here.
When less new features are introduced less new interdependencies are introduced. I could try and expand on this but people make phd on the subject so that would be presumptuous of me. un-educated guess is (m + n)! - m! where m is old features and n is new features example: 1 old feature + 1 new feature mean 1 check to see if they (still) work 1 old feature + 2 new features means 3 checks to see if they all work 2 + 2 = 6 of which only 1 is old and should be fine 2 + 3 = 10, see the n! progressing ;) this is an over simplification as the complexity of features comes in play as well. I make them out for being function points here. those are fables of course. thanks for baring that. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Stephen Turner <stephen.tur...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> I have to admit I'm a bit sceptical because when we did have a four-month >> release cycle, we never seemed to manage to meet it. Personally I think >> six-monthly might be easier. >> >> Having said that, part of the problem was the long close-down period where >> we kept finding critical bugs, so more automated testing might help to >> shorten the cycle. >> >> > > - Shorter cycle means that it's less of a problem to miss a deadline, > meaning you can spend more time on QA. > - Longer cycle means that it could be critical to meet the deadline, > meaning you might end up doing less QA while stressing to get your feature > in. > > My $.002 > > -- > Erik -- Daan
