Re: WARNING: Say "NO" to patched

In article <19971002205400.QAA29566@ladder02.news.aol.com>, SaTriGuy <satriguy@aol.com> wrote: >Rebuttal time --- ;-) >Mike has some very good points, and I can't totally dis-reguard them. However, > if all things are equal and the customer had a choice between an interim that > has gone through a full QA test suite (that takes over a month to complete) > and a patch, which makes more sense? More sense? The QA'd version. But the option that makes the most sense is not always the option that gains approval, because, more often than not, all things aren't equal. It's not easy to slip a version upgrade into a release late in the development cycle, but a patch can often get through without much trouble at all. At one point, the only way my crew could get an upgrade into one particular product was to explain that the patch that the project was requesting would touch as many modules as the upgrade did. I was much happier taking the upgrade (which was subsequently patched, but that's another story ...) Jim -- W. Jim Jordan, Nortel, Stop 314 Qualicum, PO Box 3511 Stn C, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Canada I do not speak for Nortel. Unsolicited commercial or bulk e-mail may attract an invoice.