Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Aaron,
I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made
several mistakes. We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear
about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few
did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the
rework). After that we let the TCK stumble, etc.
From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a
significant release. I would like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after
we cut 1.1. For that release I want to address outstanding JIRAs,
usability and performance.
When I hear "usability and performance", I hear feature improvements and
additions, not patching. Let us not repeat the same mistake with a
patch branch.
I think the terms are overloaded and do require some clarification. I'd like to move them out of
this unrelated thread though...will start a new one.
Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in helping
out there as well. I'll start another thread on that topic when we
get 1.1 out the door.
I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some
incremental 1.1.x releases it might fill in the gaps nicely.
*.*.x should be for patches. What you seem to be proposing is
dangerous. I wonder if I am missing something.
Regards,
Alan
- Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager Matt Hogstrom
-
