Jon Berndt said: > > David Megginson wrote: > > > I agree with Curt. There are two basic strategies for releasing: > > > 2. Release often, testing every release only lightly. > > > I think that #2 works better for most cases > > > > What he said. > > > > One way of looking at it is this: The goal isn't to produce individual > > releases with the greatest quality, it's to produce the best software > > we can with the resources available. Waiting on releases for testing > > means that developers have to put off contributions, bug reports on > > those contributions then come in later than they would otherwise, the > > bug fixes go in later and the next release gets pushed back. We end > > up doing less development and making fewer releases, which is *bad* > > for software quality in the long run. > > > > Andy > > My current task (daytime) involves leading the development of prototype > space shuttle flight software, which includes testing the releases and > writing the release reports. If I took the above approach I'd be out of a > job in two minutes. Obviously, it's different for volunteer efforts. I would
That's right, it is different, and I think that should be enough to skip the rest of your argument. Given everyone's commitments, especially Curt's (with the new baby), I am no less than amazed that we have any sort of release now. > strongly disagree with the sentiment that seems to be reflected in the > statement: "The goal isn't to produce individual releases with the greatest > quality, it's to produce the best software we can with the resources > available." This seems to say, "release often, and we really don't care if > it works that well or not because we're in a hurry and don't have much > help". IMHO, that's what we do in CVS as we develop. So what's the diff? I see releases from an alpha/beta level development project as just a way for non programmers/non-cvs users to participate in the process. > Releases are a > different matter altogether. How many releases have been put together in the > past year? Since January 2003 there have been three releases (IMHO this is > NOT "often"). The release before that had to be redone within days because a > file was missing, I think. My hope is that the pre-releases could sit as is > a bit longer - I'd say at least over a weekend - so more people can have a > chance to try it out. What's a few days more in comparison to the > several-month release cycles? I think you've ignored Curt's response to this the first time, why are you repeating the same point? The first was good enough for me. > My experience tells me this would result in > less re-work in the long run, and it would also result in a better release. > It would also use a lot more of the "resources we have available" by > allowing more people to use their "available resources" on weekends or as > time permits to help out and _share_the_burden_. > Let's see what happens then. Can you still do some testing now anyway? It is never too late to contribute a bug fix. Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
