On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto < [email protected]> wrote:
> Em 06-04-2011 17:32, Eliot Miranda escreveu: > > > > (...) > > > I couldn't disagree more. Especially with VisualWorks time-boxing has > caused problems with quality and delivery of functionality. Fundamentally > there is no point putting out a release for the sake of it. A release is > about functionality, both new functionality and bug fixes. Without either > of these there is absolutely no point in releasing anything beyond > marketing. Yes, during a release one can make the call that because a > subset of the functionality will arrive much later than the rest of the > functionality it makes sense for that late functionality to slip the release > and arrive in a later one. But that doesn't imply putting out an > essentially empty release for the sake of promptness. > > +1 Here > > > One thing I do approve of is maintennance releases, where some time after > an initial release one puts out a maintennance release that only contains > bug fixes and no new functionality and I think there are good arguments for > and positive experience with scheduling the maintennance release to arrive > at some fixed time after the first release, e.g. 4 to 6 months. But major > releases must IMO be driven by content. > > +1 Here but... > > I think that maintenance releases must be presented in the form of > "software updates" (meaning, no need to install a new image & reinstall > everything in it). Ideally it should be possible to upgrade fixes without > breaking what's working. > Agreed. What I said about maintennance releases was rather 20th century of me. Forget I ever mentioned it :) > best > Eliot > > >> (...) >> >> Best regards, > > CdAB >
