> I've always considered Fumbles as 'bad enough failure that you can't
> just repeat the task'.
Thank you! A nice clear definition. That one gets added to my HW glossary, along with "Wealth = credit rating"
And of course, that explains why 1w is enough to be trusted and competent. If a failure can be corrected by repetition and time, then it doesn't really matter. Given the whole day, you'll get those sheep into the fold. Given enough recompiles, you'll get your program working. And maybe the third cake will rise properly.
But fumbles: if you can't just redo from start, you're in trouble. So 1w.
Powered by hypermail