Mark Mielke <m...@mark.mielke.cc> writes: >I think this is only true in the sense that more users have a better >chance of exposing existing problems. (Assuming the 'bugs' are actual >bugs' and not feature requests) > >More bugs means more technical debt, which means less efficiency for >the entire project over time. At some critical point, the product >developers spend 100% of their time addressing defects and work >arounds, and 0% of the time improving the product. > >Killing technical debt can be very important in terms of enabling >features to be developed.
I just meant that a project shouldn't be ruled by its bug database (the same way an individual shouldn't be ruled by their inbox). The project should decide what's important; some of the important things will be bugs, but some will also be new features. If a project thinks of every filed bug as "technical debt", then it will be the software equivalent of a tenant farmer for the rest of its life. -Karl
