What's more Kevin didn't say RunRev was going to disregard minor glitches, just that fixes may have to wait until a later release.
Frankly, I'd rather deal with the devil I know (minor glitches) than with one I don't (unrecognized bugs introduced in the process of last minute tweaks to fix minor annoyances).
On Aug 27, 2004, at 9:28 PM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
At 20:16 27/08/2004 -0400, yoy wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: 2.5 Release Candidate 1
> At this time we are no longer able to respond to minor glitches or
> annoyances reported. This is because we must change as little as possible
> in any rebuild to ensure we don't introduce any new issues.
C'mon! That's an outright POS comment.
Establish a known bugged FC???
No, in fact that's outright common sense. Introducing changes to software carries a risk of unintended consequences - even with the best automated testing methods around, you can't afford to risk making unnecessary changes at the last minute. If you find a major problem, you must fix it; if you find a serious or moderate problem, you have to make judgement - that's why software development managers gets paid big bucks; but if you find a minor annoyance you must not fix it.
As the release date gets closer, you have to "throttle down" on introducing changes to minor bugs and annoyances. I don't know a software company that doesn't use some form of this "throttling" technique as it gets to final release of large products. You can do it differently for smaller products, where the predictability of unintended consequences is orders of magnitude smaller - but not for medium or large products, and I think Rev must be big enough to qualify for that category.
-- Alex.
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
