1 |
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven |
4 |
> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break |
5 |
> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no |
6 |
> progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all |
7 |
> known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very |
8 |
> common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some |
9 |
> bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch |
10 |
> post-launch; I don't see how this is any different. |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such, |
14 |
but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days |
15 |
after it is announced. |
16 |
|
17 |
If the announcement were that we have a tracker and some languishing |
18 |
bugs, and we'd like to push to get them closed in two weeks I'd feel |
19 |
differently. |
20 |
|
21 |
Rich |