On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 07:26:10AM +0000, Ram Ganesh wrote: > Yes. I can only agree with you on this. When we come up with dates > we have to be cognizant about slips in prior releases (we had 6 RC > re-spins and counting....) which would have had impact which is the > case now. We have to be bit flexible with our dates. >
But you do agree that the re-spins uncovered bugs/issues that needed to be fixed? Is it perhaps a mismatch in when the artifacts start getting tested by the users+devs as opposed to when company-x might be satisfied with their testing? More than 90% of the re-spins are bugs/issues uncovered by users who needed RC candidates and weren't testing artifacts on a daily basis (I could be wrong here). I don't think someone with a large test engineering team would wait for the RCs to get rolling. May be if we addressed that mismatch in timing we could have smaller RC phases. Something like a soft-freeze and a hard-freeze. post soft-freeze : users+devs do a daily test (mostly manually for features they care about) post hard-freeze : everyone only looks at a daily automated test report and if all looks good, we release? -- Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
