On 04/15/2012 02:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:
One of the good reasons for this format (although I have no idea if it
is why it's why it was chosen) is that there are some good statistics
behind pairwise comparison.
The main problem with that format is comparing apples with oranges.
features should be compared at the same level of usage and eventually
complexity not just because B come after A or a random has been
applied.
- benoît
I agree with Benoit here. Most of these comparisons had me scratching my
head. These are largely not even apple/orange comparison, more like
apple/rock comparisons. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each
other. Also, lumping new feature X in with items that are really just
broken and need fixed (re-factored) isn't really useful. All of the
re-factoring needs done, and likely some of the new features. Many of
the new features are likely trigger some of the other work identified
anyhow. -1 on this as a useful voting format.
Wendall
