Hi, I think (and some of this I wasn't around for) that we had agreed that more was more on the release front. Certainly it gives us more confidence/motivation to keep everything in good shape on trunk (i.e. test it !).
For the Java releases, I'd personally rather keep an early & frequent approach to releasing and have goals for each one that match up (loosely) with the time available and the commitment in people terms to tasks. We can plan different release schedules for the verious components, with an agreement around interop testing, though. If people know that they're going to be working on, let's start there and then see if anyone has any time left. I should know what that looks like for me next week. How is everyone else fixed in terms of shouting out what they plan to do ? Interop is a definite goal and an important one for us all I agree. On the Java broker side I have come around (personally) to thinking that Flow To Disk blows everything else of the water in importance terms. Let's make our broker survive (without yeuch recovery) in all cases then do everything else. Just seeing how that plans in/out with available resources to make it happen. I think we'll need to talk about which changes to branch for - some things on the list are pretty big items that might well span more than one release cycle. Again, just my penny's worth. Hth, Marnie On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > Marnie McCormack wrote: > >> The build window for a March release is around 55 days (allowing for some >> testing time). Not a huge amount, given utilisation etc. >> > > Maybe March is too soon? > > If the features on the page for M5 are more, shall we say, aspirational - >> let's use them as a roadmap for 2009. >> > > I'm certainly keen on understanding how our roadmap will take us to the > point where all Qpid components interoperate with each other. If it is not > feasible for the next release thats fine. >
