1 |
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> I think part of Mike's point is that time and time again has proven |
5 |
>> that the way to a mans heart^H^H^H^H to get things fixed is to break |
6 |
>> them. The aforementioned example of a tracker open for months with no |
7 |
>> progress is an example of halted progress. If we waited to fix all |
8 |
>> known issues prior to launch, then we would never launch. This is very |
9 |
>> common in software development. Some features are v2 features, some |
10 |
>> bugs are not worth fixing. Some bugs we will fix with a patch |
11 |
>> post-launch; I don't see how this is any different. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I agree with your point. I'm fine with setting deadlines and such, |
15 |
> but my main concern is that the first deadline shouldn't be two days |
16 |
> after it is announced. |
17 |
|
18 |
The tracker has been open since July 4th. |
19 |
|
20 |
> |
21 |
> If the announcement were that we have a tracker and some languishing |
22 |
> bugs, and we'd like to push to get them closed in two weeks I'd feel |
23 |
> differently. |
24 |
|
25 |
I can't really say Mike is the shining example of how we should |
26 |
communicate; but then again, neither am I :) |
27 |
|
28 |
-A |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> Rich |
32 |
> |