On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 02:21:03PM -0400, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 19:23 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On 8/27/05, Bryce Harrington <bryce@...260...> wrote:
For even releases, we use the tallied bug counts like we've done before, but for odd releases (starting with 0.43), we instead count RFE scores.
This may be a good idea, but consider that a feature needs much more time to be done well, on average, than a bug. A quick bug fix is good, but a "quick feature" is not always so. I don't think we have a lot of "easy" ones in the tracker anyway.
I agree. We have enough severe problems from quick feature hacks in the codebase already. Features are definitely one of those things that NEED to be finished at a natural pace, done _when they're ready_.
Combining that with not setting a bug-fixing goal is just a recipe for major disaster.
You may be right, and this is the main reservation I had for proposing this before. But on the other hand, it could possibly work out quite well. We have faced similar risk of introducing new bugs from doing quick bug fixing, yet in practice it has proven well worth the risk. I think it'd be interesting to try it with features as well; if it turns out to cause too many problems, of course we wouldn't do it again.
What I suspect is that, like bug fixes, there are certain features that receive the bulk of the developer attention because they scratch the developer's personal itches or their own development plans, but others which haven't fit in with that process, that this approach would address more directly.
Knowing how good the Inkscape team is at knocking out features, I think we could set our goal at 400 points worth of features.
I think that's too high. Unless we count everything starting from 0.42. Also most RFEs are unprioritized at 5 (and unlike bugs, how are we to prioritize them - by difficulty? by importance?)
Way, way too high. Bug fix and feature work are inherently different. Bug fixes, we're revisiting familiar old territory. Feature work is more exploratory.
Okay, what if we made it 100 points counting from now, just to try this new concept out? That'd work out to something like 10-20 features, which shouldn't be too risky but would be enough to demonstrate or falsify the idea in general.
If you think that the bug-fixing goal is important, perhaps we could follow the 100 points of rfe's with 100 points of bug fixes or something? (Or would that be too complicated?)
Bryce