MS Vista has been delayed a couple of times and this is often attributed to different factors. This article shows how Windows did the version management. Check it out:
You have a very large number of branches that sometimes need to be integrated. The whole point of these branches is to establish "quality control exit gates", where the code will not pass upstream unless it passes the quality control check. This is a nice thought and that part might work, but there is another consideration for quality to be made here... immediate synchronization with other code. Now, the person writing this article is convinced that without this level of "management", nothing will ever ship.
Consider the Linux kernel. There is basically one mailing list and one mailing list only. There exists an idea of "separation of expertise", but not really "separation of concern or by branch". This does not mean that branches are not used, but they are temporary. The only longer-lived branches are kernel version branches (2.2, 2.4, 2.6), so you have different streams there.
The mailing list is considered total chaos (if you live up to MS terms). Everybody has access to every comment, even if they don't work on it and comments on everything. Filtering on your area of interest may be quite difficult, but in the end you can gather insight into everything that is going on. Messages in the middle establish "code freezes" (sent by Linux) when another version of Linux is to be closed off.
What I am ignoring so far is that Windows is much more than just a kernel, so the comparison is not truly fair. The problems that Windows may have faced in Vista is not necessarily "quality control", but immediate access to new features and managing the streams of code in real-time. Now, I am not saying there is a solution to this dilemma, but there is a problem to be solved.
If you rely on the quality gates, then a new feature that you depend on may only arrive after two weeks. Forget about putting pressure. Then you need to start a political fight with another department with a different budget and different bosses to get this feature in or *your* project will delay. Truth is that it's not truly the concern of that other department.
Open Source does not have a deadline and no requirement to make everything backwards compatible. Windows this is highly desired. So Windows needs to maintain backwards-compatible API's using a new structure of the kernel, but "looking" the same. We all know this is an impossible task...
So... we can argue... is the shipping of Windows Vista truly a miracle and good management, or could it have shipped way earlier if they would have managed things differently? Their personal experience shows that the way how it initially worked wasn't actually working very well...
New tool in town: KnowledgeGenes.com
7 years ago