In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:24:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule? > > More code, more regression testing, same number of programmers. Do the math.
Less code, every patch produced to date /removes/ code.
More regression testing, same number of programmes, ok.
> Take it as a given that it *will* slip the schedule some amount, because
> the resources for a 240/4 feature will have to come from somewhere. So
> how much slippage are you willing to accept?
Ok, I'll accept a month slippage in IPv6 "features". (What are we still
waiting on, anyway?)
I also believe that's also about 29 more days than most vendors
should need to do the job.
--
Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org
pgpnYJqL0oCGc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
