Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 19:14:02 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Possibility? Message-ID: <l03010500ae95b3dc474c@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <15018.846196060@time.cdrom.com> References: Your message of "Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:52:09 PDT." <199610241752.KAA12316@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Why does everyone assume (incorrectly, IMO) that it is onerous to >> >> 1) Say what you are going to do >> 2) Do what you say > >Did you really want an answer to these rhetorical questions? Is that >also a rhetorical question? ;-) > >Because in a volunteer project, you invariably: > >1) Say you're going to do a lot more than you can, human enthusiasms > being what they are. > >2) Do only some portion of these things, being somewhat encumbered by > various laws of physics which state that you can't do 170 hours > worth of work in a 168 hour week, even by eschewing sleep. I agree with Jordan that the nature of the organization precludes SCHEDULING of features in the manner that some would like to see. But that is also true of commercial operations :-) However, I don't see how it applies to the DESIGN METHODOLOGY. First you design a specification and then you implement to the specification. And Terry left out the next step which is to test that the implementation meets the specification. This methodology CAN be applied to any group as long as someone is willing to say "if you cannot play by the rules, you don't get to play here" I've seen you apply that philosophy to e-mail. I don't see why you cannot apply the same attitude to code.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010500ae95b3dc474c>