On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Dave Thomas <dave / pragprog.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> Is that necessarily a bad thing?
> Yes: most of the last minute issues folks are discussing now are because
> there weren't many people using 1.9. [...]

> One of the fundamental drivers behind agility is feedback. When the
> "experimental" branches are sequestered away like this, the number of people
> using the new release is small, and the feedback you get is poor. As a
> result, the developers tend to tinker in something of a vacuum. The release
> gets bigger and bigger, and the differences between the new and the old get
> greater and greater. Then, when you do finally drop the new 2.0, people will
> feel there's such a major difference they will be reluctant to change.

I'm sympathetic to this, but I'm also sympathetic to the fact that
sometimes freezes like this are dangerous to future migrations, too.
At work, we're *still* dealing with the fallout of several bad
technology decisions made years ago.

If we want 1.9.1 to be a binary API feature freeze, why don't we push
the release date back, rather than pushing the binary API feature
freeze back a version?

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca