Subject: Re: why bother planning? (was Re: Bugzilla comments)
From: Paul Rohr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 12 2001 - 17:45:02 CST
At 09:34 PM 3/12/01 +0100, Jesper Skov wrote:
>>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Rohr <email@example.com> writes:
>Paul> Huh? Your description of the situation is quite apt, but that's
>Paul> entirely the wrong conclusion to draw. It's *always* useful to
>Paul> know that feature X has a minimum of 40 hours of effort
>Paul> remaining before it Just Works.
>Agree 100%. But I also know how reliable estimates are, especially if
>they're just shaken out of a sleeve.
Point taken. My hope was that the component owner would feel comfortable
producing estimates when he/she first reviewed the bug. That way it's there
as a reminder to themselves about how much effort is required (or a hint to
someone else who wants to be a hero and submit the patch sooner.)
Otherwise, leaving the estimate as unknown is its own statement.
As far as reliability goes, IIRC, the Eazel description for this field
indicates that you should update it to reflect what's left. So, if
ownership gets transferred to someone else, they can tune it accordingly.
>But I don't really mind having the option. I just think it unlikely
>that it'll be put to proper use.
Understood. Not having it guarantees that it won't be. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Mar 12 2001 - 17:46:49 CST