tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13831777.post-87946207069281795962008-01-03T23:12:00.000-05:002008-01-03T23:12:00.000-05:00Hi Damon,<BR/><BR/>"Regarding your comment about grabbing 2007.4, 2007.5 etc, you run that same risk with a traditional major release, and in fact the likelihood is much higher for this with a traditional process."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"I was forgetting that the connotation of "latest and greatest" is that it is untested"<BR/><BR/>Its not so much a case that latest and greatest is untested...<BR/><BR/>The chance of a bug being introduced is much higher when you add a feature then when you patch a bug. If you ship regular releases which <I>all</I> have new features, you are much more likely to ship new bugs than if you are just shipping patch releases that are restricted to fixing bugs. It is not a question of less testing - It is just that what you are trying to do is inherently less stable. As a customer, I usually don't want new features (unless there is a compelling reason).<BR/><BR/>I would advocate having a stable branch for most users, and a bleeding edge release for the enthusiasts (another name for a beta program)- (note - when I say "unstable", I mean "It changes a lot" rather than "It crashes a lot". Release often by all means, but I think it is a good idea to not try and get your everyday users onto that train.The Melbourniannoreply@blogger.com