Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
> In netscape.public.mozilla.seamonkey the people heard Asa Dotzler say
> these wise words:
>
>
>>>IMHO, 1.0 quality = all implemented features working to an acceptably
>>>high standard, and released as a finished product.
>>>
>>
>>This kind of comment does nothing to help the discussion. This thread
>>is about defining the "acceptably high standard". Saying 1.0 needs to
>>meet the standard we've defined for 1.0 is a little silly, no?
>>
>
> The acceptable standard is - "free of known bugs"!
>
> Make Mozilla free of known bugs, then - and only then - add new features
> intended for a new release!
>
> Intil the code is free of known bugs the project won't can't be considered
> completed.
>
> This is, to me, quite logical. Work on a product's faults before creating a
> new version of the product with additional features and more faults.
>
>
>
I would love to live in an ideal world but there no way that we could
release a product that was completely free of bugs. It's just not
possible in any kind of sense.
It's enough to have fixed the serious bugs that you can identify. In a
multi-million line chunk of code there will always be bugs. As the
complexity of any piece of software increases so does the chance of
bugs. Ever wonder why NASA still uses computers with 64k of memory?
--Chris
--
------------
Christopher Blizzard
http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/
Mozilla.org - we're on a mission from God. Still.
------------
