David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 11, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I'd feel a lot better about tight restrictions on 1.1.1 if we really
made 1.2 a "minor release" and put all the stuff on the plate for 1.2
into 2.0. But so long as 1.2 is a major release, then 1.1.1 needs
more than hot fixes. On a related point, I'm not sure we want
multiple big version releases per year.
I agree with you here. The nice thing about the policy that I
outlined below is that we can safely time box patch releases.
As for what gets scheduled for what release, I think that it's not
realistic to start by stacking a release w/ issues and hope that
people will "show up" to get them done in the scheduled time frame;
this only works if we are making shoes ;). With that said, time
boxing is what would work best with our unique body of developers.
Working within the strict interpretation of releases that I
outlined below, people would schedule themselves in with concrete
commitments.
Bugs would not get scheduled in until someone actually picked it up
and started working on it. At that time, the developer would mark
what releases his changes would fix.
Features would not get scheduled in until someone actually commits
to doing that feature.
I like this approach for most things. There will always be the need
to say "x needs to be fixed to ship this release" even if no one is
signed up to work on it. I just wish we'd vote or come to a
consensus on items like these *before* they get assigned to a
release. IMHO, having to +1 it to be added to the release means
among many things you 1) saw it, 2) know about it, 3) are fully
aware of what is outstanding and not yet being worked on, and 4) you
agree with it.
We are a group of individuals who work on a voluntary basis.
Assigning issues to a release amounts to wishful thinking; just look
at the version ping pong that Matt and Aaron play for our releases.
Sure... seems you are making my point for me, am I missing something?
And to be clear, I am only talking about unassigned issues; things we
as a group think should be done but don't yet have an owner. I just
want to see some discussion and agreement on these kinds of items.
RTC is already in place for things actually done for a release.
I am talking about those as well. There's no point in assigning a
version number to an unassigned issue if no one has committed to doing
the work. Maybe that's not what you're advocating.
Regards,
Alan
