On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Victor <jeff.j.vic...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The general rule is "convince product management that there is a business
> > reason to invest the engineer(s) and it will get done."
> IMO, for backports, the bar should be much higher.

Yes. I intended to say "sufficient business reason" to cover all that. My

>  The vendor should
> compute the cost of the backport *including* the cost of opportunity,
> and including the further cost of opportunity involved in encouraging
> more backports by the mere fact of having done one backport (if the
> customer believes they can put off upgrading forever then the pressure
> to backport more and more features will rise).  If the value of doing
> the backport *significantly* exceeds that cost, then, sure, do the
> backport.
> The cost of backporting complex features, particularly ones that have
> wide ramifications, and particularly when the backport is to Solaris
> 10, with its awful patching mechanisms, is best understood as
> astronomical.  A backport of Zoned NFS server should be considered as
> in the high 7 $ figure range, if not higher still -- after all, how do
> you estimate the forgone value of talented engineers working on
> innovative new features??
> Just say no to backports.  Pressure the ISVs instead to re-certify
> their apps.  Legacy costs the customer a lot also -- there's enormous,
> typically unaccounted-for costs in legacy.
> Nico
> --
zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to