On 6 April 2011 22:32, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:30 AM, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Planning is also important.
Time is good, but another thing is i think we should think about, what features we want to be in new release, and do not release until they delivered.
I don't really like this. I prefer rhythm, agility. Timeboxing enables maximum value in each release. If a feature is really important, it will be on time. If not on time, it means it was no so important.
I couldn't disagree more. Â Especially with VisualWorks time-boxing has caused problems with quality and delivery of functionality. Â 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. Â Without either of these there is absolutely no point in releasing anything beyond marketing. Â 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. Â But that doesn't imply putting out an essentially empty release for the sake of promptness.
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. Â But major releases must IMO be driven by content.
Right. That's exactly what i wanted to say. There's no point to make a release of a 'new version' if it doesn't contains a functionality which were planned to include. Maintenance is sufficient for this. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.