On 28/03/13 7:59 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 02:19:06PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: >> On 28-Mar-2013, at 7:20 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> >>wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:30PM +0000, Abhinandan Prateek wrote: >> >> I think both the branches are important, yes 4.1 is close to release >>and >> >> people assigned issues should give priority to 4.1. >> >> There are also many people trying to test there features in master >>and >> >> unstable master is resulting in wasted cycles. >> >> >> >> Having said that I guess people having issues assigned in both the >> >> branches should focus on 4.1 issues first before moving to 4.2 bugs. >> > >> > Yes, and it seems to me that discussions around prioritization of bugs >> > in master should be threaded by *feature* primarily (excepting general >> > blockers that *break* the build/tests). >> > >> Sure, will prioritise the master bugs only if they block some feature >>development or in general break the build/test. > >Sorry, I think you may be missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm >suggesting >that communication around features is probably best done with the feature >itself >being the subject of the thread. If someone is building feature X, and >someone else has volunteered to test feature X, then they should be >coordinating with each other on feature X. > >The reason that a release cycle changes this communication to "release >level" focus, is that there is a specific schedule that we're trying to >work towards as a community. > >Does that distinction make sense? Yes, I understand that we are trying to get the current releases out and the focus should not be diluted. For any follow up on current features or bugs the communication should be around features and not around the release as it is still not there in the release cycle. My intention is to help out people who cannot test the feature due to existing issues on master if any. Again I will be taking it slow on master (only focusing on issues that matter at this point in release cycle) so that appropriate focus is there on current releases. Does this sound good or I am still missing something. >
