On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
> > The target-date-based approach we've taken in the last couple of
> > releases seems much more productive.
> >
>
> productive on a small scale; for sure. productive for large scale
> features... well, that's why it's being discussed.
'K, but if we extend the dev cycle in order to get 'foo' in, how is that
better then having 'foo' continue to be developed thru the release and
committed in the next cycle?
If it takes foo 6 months to develop, I'd rather have the release happen
after 4 months as per normal (or close to it) and have 'foo' brought in
part way into dev cycle 2 ... at least then, if 'foo' ends up taking 7
months, we aren't delaying even further ...
Its not like our dev cycles have 'idle periods' where nothing is happening
and we're waiting for a feature to come along ... there is *alot* of
changes going on that affect alot of ppl that don't really care about
feature 'foo' coming along ...
