![]() |
2010-01-11
, 12:33
|
|
Posts: 190 |
Thanked: 101 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#22
|
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 12:37
|
Posts: 94 |
Thanked: 10 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#23
|
It is not possible to set dates for bug fixes until the cause of the bug has been found and a solution devised. With nastier bugs no timescale at all can be set at first, because nobody knows why it happens or even if a fix is possible.
When a fix is found, it must be confirmed by testing, review, etc. otherwise it is not known to be a fix.
When all that's done, only then, can a release timescale be set.
In general, there are two options, both with pros and cons:
1. Set goals, and be unable to say (reliably) how long it will take, only give estimates and ranges. This seems to be Nokia's way so far with the N900. (It is also my way when working)
2. Set times for releases, and be unable to say what will be included, only give estimates and have unreliable intentions. This is called timeboxing. It can encourage regular output, but the downside is people getting expectations about what will be included and being disappointed.
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:00
|
Posts: 162 |
Thanked: 79 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Finland
|
#24
|
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:00
|
Posts: 474 |
Thanked: 283 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Oxford, UK
|
#25
|
I sometimes think people spend more time debating about when their phone will get an update as to actually using their phone.
The Following User Says Thank You to jjx For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:15
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#26
|
I'm not complaining so much as trying to understand the processes involved.
IMO, the bug identified => identified fix => release process is not as quick as the equivalent process on debian / ubuntu. Arguably the fact that the phone has only been out 2 months means that this update process should be quicker than at a later stage in the product's lifespan, to capitalise on initial interest in the n900 / not give everyone a bad initial impression of things to come.
I would agree with the idea of allowing for a beta repo; whilst I can understand that Nokia may want to protect users from shafting their handset, this process works well for all other Linux distros without too much of this problem, as well as MS with Win 7 betas etc. If they can do it, why can't Nokia?
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:20
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#27
|
that march date was just speculation started by a blogger which is definitely not true.
nokia would not give the update out for testing if it was still 3 months from a stable release.
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:24
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#28
|
Entering to the market with buggy and incomplete functions that have been around on rivaliers product for quite long I would say that people are pretty patience right now.
...
...
I would have gone really mad if i had bought this device for 550€ or maybe I would have given it about 1 week to get updates and after that changed it to other device. People do not have time to "get this" maemo/community idea they are too busy at doing their work and making money for their company and shareholders.
...
...
I think that it's really twisted that there is people who forgive incomplitness on many areas because of e.g. multi-tasking and potential. I think that these kind of people have no slightes idea how you should make business todays fast paced markets and they live in dream world. A bit harsh to say, but that's just what i feel. :|
...
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:38
|
Posts: 291 |
Thanked: 134 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ North-west, UK
|
#29
|
![]() |
2010-01-11
, 13:43
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#30
|
nokia would not give the update out for testing if it was still 3 months from a stable release.
its obvious nokia are happy with the beta build and opened it to outside testers to help them fine tuning which will benefit us all