that's a good idea too...
On Oct 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
Well, from past experience, I know it can be hard to keep up when a
bunch of Jira's are being changed. I know I had a few M5 surprises.
I also think we should be a bit stricter for a 1.0 release vs a
milestone release -- both from a content basis and from a
scheduling perspective. So, we should make sure it's as easy as
possible to review the jiras.
On the flip-side, Jira is the perfect way of listing/viewing the
details of the problems. Is it possible to define a temporary "Not
for 1.0" release in Jira? That way we could easily view the 1.0
candidate jiras, the "not for 1.0" jiras, and the current 1.1
jiras. After consensus is reached, the "not for 1.0 jiras" could be
moved to 1.1.
--kevan
On 10/26/05, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Sounds good
to me...others?
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Oct 26, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'm going through the open JIRAs to see what is a 1.0
requirement and
>> what is a future feature. For example, the likelyhood of
getting the
>> TriFork ORB done before 1.0 is probably not likely (but would
be nice).
>>
>> Anyone have suggestions on how to communicate this? I was going to
>> send out a list of the JIRAs and my take on what we need to get
done
>> for 1.0 in a note to the Dev List before changing anything in
JIRA.
>> Does that sound like a good way to start ?
>
>
> Yes, but I worry that its a lot of work for you. An alternative
(for
> which I suggest we get feedback) is change what you think should be
> post 1.0 and since we get the JIRA change stream here, we can
watch and
> complain^H^H^H^H^H^H discuss the specific ones for which we
disagree...
>
> geir
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
