On 8/22/07, Mikhail Loenko wrote: > Basing on M2 experience I think 2-mo is a too short for Harmony: > 25% of the whole time we would have our workspace somehow frozen. > And we couldn't shorten freeze time since we have long running > suites and scenarios. > > IMHO it negatively affects progress of the project. > So I'm +1 for having fixed schedule, but 2-mo schedule does not leave > enough time for normal development
I agree with Mikhail - 2 month schedule looks too short. -Stepan. > > Thanks, > Mikhail > > 2007/8/22, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Weldon Washburn wrote: > > > hmm... Its August and lots of folks are on vacation. > > > > True, I just got back from vacation myself, but I don't see that as a > > reason to delay a stability drive and declaring a stable build as M3. > > Indeed, it could be easier if there is less churn in the code! > > > > > 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. > > > > The content of M3 is whatever is in SVN at the point we declare it > > stable. If there is code that is misbehaving then we would take it out > > to achieve stability across the codebase. IMHO extending the period to > > decide what is in it doesn't make sense. > > > > So I say let's start to chill down the code in the next few days, and > > freeze next week to test and declare an M3 at the end of the month. I > > believe that producing regular, predictable milestones is one > > characteristic of a healthy project. > > > > Regards, > > Tim
