Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
1,531
edits
User talk:ChrisHofmann/QuarterlyReleases: Difference between revisions
User talk:ChrisHofmann/QuarterlyReleases (view source)
Revision as of 22:35, 21 March 2011
, 21 March 2011→Why Did We Change the Development Process?
ChrisHofmann (talk | contribs) |
ChrisHofmann (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
*The monthly, and then quarterly cycle were not conducive to taking on larger and longer core development projects that didn't lend themselves to long term parallel development on project branches and/or and landing, testing, and shipping to lots of people within a 1-3 month cycle. The result of 3 years of this rapid fire releases was to create incentives for developers to take on smaller, and less ground breaking work and discourage the work on harder and more complicated improvements. | *The monthly, and then quarterly cycle were not conducive to taking on larger and longer core development projects that didn't lend themselves to long term parallel development on project branches and/or and landing, testing, and shipping to lots of people within a 1-3 month cycle. The result of 3 years of this rapid fire releases was to create incentives for developers to take on smaller, and less ground breaking work and discourage the work on harder and more complicated improvements. | ||
*The other criticism of the 2001-2004 development process was about having to develop code with build flags and run time | *The other criticism of the 2001-2004 development process was about having to develop code with build flags and run time prefs to turn off and on features. Over time this led to extra unwanted complexity in the code. | ||
*It was easier to market and make noise about big bang releases with a larger collection of features. | *It was easier to market and make noise about big bang releases with a larger collection of features. | ||