cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> While I agree with this sentiment on a general basis, I can't help but
> to laugh at the reality of the situation. The 0.19 "planned change"
> that I finished today is going to get only *barely* more testing than
> this change. By your argument, we should always be releasing several
> days behind HEAD, and therefore should be adjusting our
> milestones/dates accordingly.
I don't think that's quite what my argument implies. You remembered
to put the risk in the denominator, but forgot to put the benefit in
the numerator :-). If you have two changes, both equally risky in
terms of code flux, but only the first of which is needed for the
milestone, then the
gain
------
risk
ratio is highest if you commit *just* the first change (as opposed to
committing both, or committing just the second).
> Scramble? Dream on. This change was done in 20 minutes, and *should*
> have been thoroughly tested by now. In fact, it's been tested over
> ra_local, but as you know, my dav setup is hosed. :-(
Yeah :-(.
Ben points out that your mail was less expressing urgency about
getting this particular change into 0.19, and more expressing
frustration at not being able to *test* it (or anything else).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 7 16:44:29 2003