Some thoughts on 240/4

Fri Oct 19 17:08:08 UTC 2007

In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:24:44PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> > Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
> 
> More code, more regression testing, same number of programmers.  Do the math.

Less code, every patch produced to date /removes/ code.

More regression testing, same number of programmes, ok.

> Take it as a given that it *will* slip the schedule some amount, because
> the resources for a 240/4 feature will have to come from somewhere.  So
> how much slippage are you willing to accept?

Ok, I'll accept a month slippage in IPv6 "features".  (What are we still
waiting on, anyway?)

I also believe that's also about 29 more days than most vendors
should need to do the job.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071019/d0f1c6a4/attachment.sig>