Andrea Aime wrote: > Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: >>>> Ok, this list as is represents quite a bit of work so it would mean >>>> pushing back the release substantially. >>> Not necessarily. I'm finding out that working on benchmarking alone >>> is not a very productive use of my time, I usually need to mull >>> over perf issues a bit before getting a solution. In the meantime >>> I can squash some jira :-) >> I more meant the stuff that are not bug fixes. Like: >> >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3294 >> >> Is not trivial. So my point was more to try to limit to bugs and >> regressions as much as possible or else the road to 2.0 will get drawn >> out and delayed imo. > > Got it. So that will be fixed by 2.0.1? 2.1? I ask because it's not a > trivial change, once we enter RC stage it will be more risky to fix.
Well, are there any open bugs that were are sure depend on this? The only issue I know of is not being able to change the table structure underneath a feature type. Any others? > >> And no offense but I don't think we should hinge release dates on a >> single developers time available to churn through a bunch of tasks. >> Don't get me wrong, it is great that you have time to put toward these >> issues but I feel like the point of this process is to gather >> consensus for release dates that work for everybody. And to try and do >> so somewhat in advance. > > Duh, I did not mean I would fix all of them, sorry, put down > the sentence in the wrong way. I was thinking about these only: > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3302 (regression) > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3295 (regression) > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-3259 (in progress) > > The others are assigned to someone else. > RC should also mean "feature complete" so I'm not sure we can go there > without fixing the status of the home page (the "white hole" issue). > >> Another thing is that if everyone agrees we should try to file all >> regressions as high priority or blocker, as issues coming up shortly >> before the release that are blockers but not filed as so keep coming >> up. And it turns out to be a surprise for those who did not file or >> were not assigned the issue. > > Yup, sorry about that, I upgraded the priority of each regression to > critical status. Cool. > >>>> At this point I would prefer we keep things to regressions only (and >>>> maybe low hanging fruit) or I fear we will go down a feature creep >>>> path of improvements that might not end. >>> I guess I can fix most of those by mid of next week, maybe earlier. >>> Is that going to be ok? >> Sure, I would be fine with pushing back by a week. How do others feel? >> >> I will also point out there are other developers available to take on >> some of the issues as well (such as myself), so unless you really want >> to take them all on we can split up the work. > > No no, as I said above I did not express myself properly, I wanted > to take only on the ones assigned to me. > And then there is the issue of the home page, which is expressed > in two differen jiras and should require a bit of work for sure... Sorry, my apologies. I think i took your statement too literally :) > > Cheers > Andrea > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
