On Mar 17, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Ken G. Brown wrote:

> At 11:13 AM -0700 3/17/10, Randal L. Schwartz apparently wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ken" == Ken G Brown <kbrown at mac.com> writes:
>> 
>> Ken> In my experience it is almost always better to think things through and
>> Ken> fix known issues instead of rushing for some arbitrary deadline.  It is
>> Ken> always better to fix things before they are released.  Do it right the
>> Ken> first time.
>> 
>> And I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.  But that's too abstract to
>> have a game plan.
>> 
>> If we feature-freeze 4.1, say, next monday, there's not a lot of reasons
>> why everything couldn't get greenlighted within a few weeks after that.
>> Might not make it, but it's a reasonable goal.
>> 
>> --
>> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
>> <merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
>> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
>> See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
> 
> Ok, I could see publishing the game plan, including all tests green, agree to the game plan then work towards it.


I'm pretty sure that's what everyone is voting +1 to.

> 
> But for sure, don't push it out if the feature set is not met just to meet some arbitrary deadline.
> That's what it is sounding like will happen.
> 


I didn't hear it that way at all, and it sounds like Randal didn't either.

Looking back at the original message, I now see it wasn't explicit about this, so I can see how confusion could happen (even though it was perfectly clear to me that it was the "smart" thing being proposed, not the "stupid" thing that you assumed).  May I gently suggest that your default reaction to anything said by (loosely speaking) the SOB is perhaps overly pessimistic?

Cheers,
Josh




> Ken G. Brown
>