On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 01:21:40 -0500, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 April 2010 04:29, Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:10:30 -0500, Daniel James <dnljms@gmail.com> >>
The release process is quite different now. It seems to me that the focus is to get a regular release with the more modest goal of being an incremental improvement, rather than an 'all green' release.
Like Robert, I don't see a conflict here. The "all green" part is exactly about incremental improvement: it says "this release is not worse than the previous one, except for these known issues". It was simply a concise, objective, easy-to-track and easy-to-explain criterion to keep us on track towards that goal.
I didn't claim that it conflicts, just that it isn't a requirement for incremental improvement
IMO it is if you actually want to be objective about it rather than just guestimate.
and that it slows down releases
If you mean sometimes not releasing on the cut-off date, yes it does, as would any form of quality guarantee vs cut-off release date. But then you can't actually claim incremental improvement with the no-matter-what cut-off release date, can you?
and increases work for the release managers.
Yes, it does, although I personally disagree with the implication that the increase is inherently substantial, is solely responsible for the unbearably long past release cycles, or is too much of a price to pay for the benefit of being able to say to users "yes, you can upgrade" with any sort of confidence and facts to back it up. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering