On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto < casimiro.barreto@gmail.com> 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