[cvsnt] CVSNT gets more and more unstable (too much releases)

[Tony Hoyle]

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> I agree, but OTOH there is a line of thought that claims that development
> is more focused and efficient if you document first what the code that you
> are going to write is supposed to do. I tend to agree with that, even
> though I know many of my clients don't... :)

I'd tend to argue that formal documentation should follow code not 
precede it - development is often quite fluid (I'll usually try a couple 
of approaches before settling on a solution, or, in the rename case, 
about 50 different ones...).

In a team situation you'd have a level of documentation that meant 
everyone knew what they were supposed to be doing, at least to a general 
level.  I'm against the whole concept of 'status meetings' though (in 
the last place I worked we spent a total of 2 days a week in meetings, 
often being berated about how development was falling behind....)

OTOH cvsnt development is still basically me at the moment, and there 
aren't the team issues.. I know what I'm doing so can get away with 
jotted notes plus the long term plan (which is a written document, 
written a while ago around the time the commercial support started). 
There's a fair bit of discussion behind the scenes about priorities with 
the commercial side of march hare, although even that can change  (I 
hadn't planned to spend so much time on 2.5.01, the issue system, etc. 
and these caused 2.5.02 work to slip).

Ideally there'd be someone to sign off bugs onto as well as the 
developer who fixed it is never the person who should be testing fixes.. 
as is evident from recent snafus eg. add -r.  Once we get a second 
developer we can pass bugs to each other and at least have a 
verification system (in a company you'd have a third - the reporter - 
but that's not so easy in opensource).

Tony