Seb, since this is a community project, I would definitely consider community involvement in a ticket triage. But I agree that the effort for a meeting could be minimized if you set milestones for features that are already agreed on or required for client deliverables.
-Andreas. On Jul 22, 2010, at 19:46 , Sebastian Benthall wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM, David Winslow <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/22/2010 01:25 PM, Sebastian Benthall wrote: > One thing I think would be helpful is a thorough ticket triage in preparation > for the upcoming 1.0beta release (which is still targeted for August 2nd!) > > For this, I intend to use the following milestones: > > * 1.0beta - for FEATURES remaining to be implemented for 1.0 that are not > already listed in a prior milestone > * 1.0 - for bug reports relating to 1.0-supporting features > * 1.x - for features/bug reports desired for future milestones. > > If there are no objections, I'll get to this this afternoon. > > -- > Sebastian Benthall > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > > What is the triage process going to be like? Should we plan on an IRC > meeting to discuss tickets? > > -d > > I was just planning on going for it as a first pass based on the stated > criteria, since I didn't think the application of those rules would be > controversial enough to warrant wasting time with a meeting. > > Do you think a meeting would be important in this case? > > As an intermediate option, I can keep a look out for potentially > controversial applications of the criteria and bring them up on this list > after. > > -- > Sebastian Benthall > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > -- Andreas Hocevar OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ Expert service straight from the developers.
