On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ouch... To paraphrase Joel Spolsky "If you have a hand-wavy feature > called "1.0 release" and you schedule 3 months for it, you are doomed". > Jacob, honestly, where this date has come from? It can as easily be > August or October. You've outlined a good feature list and seem resolute > to stick to it. But unless all those lieutenants would plan their > features *in work hours*, you just can't know the date.
Remember back in math class where you'd get marked down despite the correct answer because you didn't "show your work"? I always hated that. Still do, apparently, because although I just threw those dates out there, I really did work very hard on them, and I do think they're feasible. First, it's not "a had-wavy feature": only the blocker items *must* be done for 1.0. So if we'll all extremely lazy, we've got one big-but-mostly-done feature (nfa), one medium-but-easy-and-also-almost done feature (newforms in generic views), and one trivial-and-done-but-not-merged feature (#285). I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect to get those done in three months, don't you? I didn't, though, just plunk a date three months out; the idea is to take about a month to get to the alpha -- that is, one month to finish the blocker features (but not necessarily make them bug-free), then two weeks to the first beta, then a week each between each snapshot until 1.0. Further, I actually *can* predict at least one person's time in "work hours": mine. Thanks to my kick-ass job, I get to spend most of my work hours on Django. On top of that, I have firm commitments to attend the sprints from a number of talented developers; I know from experience that sprints are incredibly productive. We'll have *six* of them between now and September. Now, of course only time will tell whether I'm nuts or not, but I'm pretty confidant that we can hit these dates. More important, though, is that having firm dates will force the people working on "maybe" features to put up or shut up, and it'll make our jobs as integrators much easier -- only having a handful of things to merge will make that process *much* less fraught. > So may be it's not too late to state clearly that we have a plan but > it's not a schedule. Well, I tried to do that with the disclaimer about this being a draft at the top. But, yeah, of course this is just a draft. That said, I don't hear alternate timeline proposals -- do you have one? If you do, you might want to learn from my mistake and "show your work" :) Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
