| 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 |
Archives