+1 side comment - if we have milestones "prior to" 1.0beta, are we going to close them next week in preparation for the beta release? why not collapse them all into the beta or, if we aren't actually going to close those milestones before the beta, mark them as 1.0+ ?
-d On 07/22/2010 01:59 PM, Andreas Hocevar wrote: > 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 >> >> >
