On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Glen Barber <glen.j.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Maxim Khitrov <mkhit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> For example, RC2 builds were scheduled for 29 September 2008. When >> that day comes (or same week perhaps), whoever has the ability to >> change the release schedule page should update it regardless of what >> happened. If RC2 builds started, that should be reflected in the >> 'actual' column. Otherwise, if it's a minor change in the timeline, >> put the new expected date in. As is the case of 7.1 release, if the >> person honestly has no idea when RC2 will happen, put in 'December', >> 'January', 'Second half of January'... 'Sometime next year' if it's >> that uncertain. Anything at all; it takes 5 minutes to do. In the >> worst case, your estimate will need to be updated again in a month or >> two. In the best case, the release will be made before the expected >> date. I, for one, promise not to complain about that. :) >> > > If the sacrifice is an out-of-date column in a webpage while bugs are > being worked out, in my opinion, that's fine with me. (IMHO)
My point was that it shouldn't be one or the other. Taking a few minutes to update the web page does not interfere with the debugging process. It also doesn't force developers to follow that timeline. It is simply an indication to the users what their expectations should be at the present time. - Max _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"