That seems like a question best answered shortly after your first wave of feedback come in from the initial beta release. If customers are generally happy, and issues are more cosmetic than structural, plan for a shorter beta session. If you find the opposite to be true, prep management to prepare for a longer more in depth beta period.
I don't know the exact specifics of your application, but I would think that a set release schedule will be easier for your customers to keep up with. When a customer does find a high priority issue, it is great to hear that the resolution is in and it will be in the next release in 2 weeks, or even 6 weeks, as long as it isn't months away. 'Patching' unless extremely diciplined can cause more problems than it solves, with customers having odd and vastly different code bases, which will create hard to reproduce issues.
In our case, we let the customer's feedback dictate our cycle. After releasing the initial beta, we listen to the feedback. Sometimes there is a catastrophic bug and we halt rollout of the beta, fix it and then resume. Othertimes, we collect bugs based on customer importance and then rollout an update once the complaining dies down. Ultimately, the customer's perception is what matters most here (in reference to speed) and so balancing their complaints against what management wants is the tricky aspect. In our case, we generally go with somewhere in the range of 2-4 weeks based on how many and how urgent the bugs are.
Go with number 1. No doubt, it's probably the best way to go. #2 is obviously not ideal, because of the long cycle time. #3 is tempting, and will cause you pretty much an unbelievable amount of trouble. Here's the reason why: if you deploy fixes to whoever needs them as they need them, you completely lose any rational versioning scheme, and keeping track of which customer has which fixes and which versions is tricky at best.
I've seen one-and-one release schedules. The first release is planned, bigger, includes features, aybe 6-8 weeks or sometimes more. The second is a planned fixup, 2 week interval. So every 10-12 weeks you have 2 releases.
发布评论
评论（4）
在最初的测试版发布收到第一波反馈后不久，这个问题似乎得到了最好的回答。 如果客户总体上很满意，并且问题更多是表面性的而不是结构性的，那么就计划缩短测试时间。 如果您发现情况恰恰相反，请做好管理准备，为更长、更深入的测试期做好准备。
我不知道您的应用程序的具体细节，但我认为设定的发布时间表将更容易让您的客户跟上。 当客户确实发现了一个高优先级问题时，很高兴听到解决方案已经出台，并且将在 2 周甚至 6 周后的下一个版本中发布，只要不是几个月后的事。 除非极其严格，否则“修补”可能会导致比其解决的问题更多的问题，因为客户拥有奇怪且截然不同的代码库，这将产生难以重现的问题。
That seems like a question best answered shortly after your first wave of feedback come in from the initial beta release. If customers are generally happy, and issues are more cosmetic than structural, plan for a shorter beta session. If you find the opposite to be true, prep management to prepare for a longer more in depth beta period.
I don't know the exact specifics of your application, but I would think that a set release schedule will be easier for your customers to keep up with. When a customer does find a high priority issue, it is great to hear that the resolution is in and it will be in the next release in 2 weeks, or even 6 weeks, as long as it isn't months away. 'Patching' unless extremely diciplined can cause more problems than it solves, with customers having odd and vastly different code bases, which will create hard to reproduce issues.
就我们而言，我们让客户的反馈决定我们的周期。 发布初始测试版后，我们会听取反馈。 有时会出现灾难性的错误，我们会停止推出测试版，修复它然后恢复。 有时，我们会根据客户重要性收集错误，然后在投诉平息后推出更新。 最终，客户的看法才是最重要的（就速度而言），因此平衡他们的投诉与管理层的需求是棘手的方面。 在我们的例子中，我们通常会根据错误的数量和紧急程度选择 2-4 周范围内的某个时间。
In our case, we let the customer's feedback dictate our cycle. After releasing the initial beta, we listen to the feedback. Sometimes there is a catastrophic bug and we halt rollout of the beta, fix it and then resume. Othertimes, we collect bugs based on customer importance and then rollout an update once the complaining dies down. Ultimately, the customer's perception is what matters most here (in reference to speed) and so balancing their complaints against what management wants is the tricky aspect. In our case, we generally go with somewhere in the range of 2-4 weeks based on how many and how urgent the bugs are.
选择第一条。毫无疑问，这可能是最好的选择。 #2 显然不理想，因为周期时间长。 #3 很诱人，并且会给你带来难以置信的麻烦。 原因如下：如果您将修复程序部署到需要它们的任何人，那么您将完全失去任何合理的版本控制方案，并且跟踪哪个客户拥有哪些修复程序以及哪些版本是很棘手的。
Go with number 1. No doubt, it's probably the best way to go. #2 is obviously not ideal, because of the long cycle time. #3 is tempting, and will cause you pretty much an unbelievable amount of trouble. Here's the reason why: if you deploy fixes to whoever needs them as they need them, you completely lose any rational versioning scheme, and keeping track of which customer has which fixes and which versions is tricky at best.
我见过一对一的发布时间表。 第一个版本已计划发布，规模更大，包含功能，可能需要 6-8 周，有时甚至更长。 第二个是有计划的修复，间隔两周。 因此，每 10-12 周您就会发布 2 个版本。
I've seen one-and-one release schedules. The first release is planned, bigger, includes features, aybe 6-8 weeks or sometimes more. The second is a planned fixup, 2 week interval. So every 10-12 weeks you have 2 releases.