I think it would be a great idea to factor in cost for a release. It would be even better if there was a review+release capability - so party A could factor in party B to do a review and release (or even Party C to do the release).
Maybe we should but a fixed fee $ (or euro :-) ) figure on a release, (I'd even be willing to divide any licence income to reimburse for releases in the past 12 months. Generally you need a clear value proposition to pass through to the funders. Being expectged to pay for a release cycle to get review attention for major new features would be quite reasonable IMHO, and I would have been able to argue that case - its much harder when its nebulous with no guarantee of the review. Rob On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Andrea Aime <[email protected]> wrote: > Jody Garnett ha scritto: >>> I am still try to convince myself that the "release early, release >>> often" is a good approach. My preference goes to "release when it's >>> worth, release something that is rock solid" >> >> One solid point the in the favour of release early release often is it >> takes some of the pressure off the planning process (if a devel group >> misses getting their functionality in by the release deadline they >> simply wait until the next release). > > Jody, if a group need to contribute new functionality it would be > probably better for them to factor in the idea of pushing out > a release? > > Anything longer than a monthly release will be problematic anyways > I think, at least most of the work that I do take has to be released > quickly, I don't think I can wait two or three months. I would just > try to step up and propose myself to make a release and make sure > the release does not contain any critical known bug. > > The monthly process has the great advantage that, as you see, if you > miss a window the next one is close anyways. > However making a release is a lot of work, most of which is actually > due to us being tied to make a GT2 release every GS release. > > If we just tagged a GT for every GS release we would probably not > be discussing this. > However that would mean no GT releases for a very long while. > > Anyways, what I'm thinking is that we could maybe maintain a monthly > release cycle is the release effort was significantly smaller. > > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > Andrea Aime > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Expert service straight from the developers. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
