+1 for 3-mo since we have long tests to check code quality we have to have long enough freeze time. And it now takes significant time comparing to development time that is not very convenient. Since we strive to maintain code base in a good shape between the milestones too (with our CC testing), it won't negatively affect code base integrity.
Thanks, Mikhail 2007/8/13, Mikhail Fursov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > +1 here to have 3-months period per release instead of 2 months. > For me, as for developer, it will be easier to integrate and test new > features. > For a Harmony every new release will have more changes and improvements and > will be more noticeable for end-users > Those who interested in fresh and tested builds every day - AFAIK we already > do them regardless of milestone. > > On 8/13/07, Weldon Washburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > hmm... Its August and lots of folks are on vacation. How about move > > M3 to the end of September? This will give us a few weeks to discuss > > what should (and should not) go into M3. > > > > On 8/12/07, Stepan Mishura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Before M2 we agreed on 2-month milestone schedule so we are close to M3. > > > > > > I'd like to start discussion > > > - schedule: are everybody comfort with 2-month milestone schedule(IOW, > > > are we ready for next milestone in the end of August) > > > - plans/targets: platforms, what worse to be included to the > > > milestone, fixed in the milestone > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Stepan Mishura > > > Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division > > > > > > > > > -- > > Weldon Washburn > > > > > > -- > Mikhail Fursov >
