On 08/21/2012 12:20 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 11:14 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 08/20/2012 05:43 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
Please think about release criteria and whether or not we want to
add/remove/change things for this release. This needs to be determined
now to make sure that the release process runs smoother down the line.
Beyond the release criteria, there's the main goal of the release - what
is the major problem oVirt users have that we can fix for the next
release, for example?
<snip>
my view - that would be great, but such goals should be suggested by
someone also committing to delivering them per the planned schedule.
I agree - it's one of the things which I've found tricky to understand
re the release manager role - the project maintainer is the one who
should, I think, be setting the scope of the release, and the release
manager is merely ensuring that everyone is aware of where we are within
that scope.
Since 3.1 is my first oVirt release, perhaps someone could explain how
the scope of the 3.1 release was decided after the 3.0 release, and how
we fared against that original plan during the release cycle?
we didn't define a scope for 3.1. people suggested features during the
version and we did some fine tuning in the end on timing since some
seemed worth the extra time to close/stabilize them.
in general, I think we should define the schedule for 3.2, then see
which features people would suggest to try and make the timeframe.
in general, I think it should be a 3-month version (we said we wanted to
move to 6 months cycle after the first few versions. I think we should
stay on 3 months especially since 3.1 took longer to get the final
blockers out and until released).
Cheers,
Dave.
_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
