Noel,
> Looks reasonable, but aggressive, to this non-voter. :-) Hopefully
there
> will be people to help perform these tasks.
>
> Where in this schedule do we actually test James with the latest
> Phoenix/Cornerstone code? I still haven't figured out if there isn't
a
> problem, as Peter Donald suggests, or if developers haven't
redeployed,
> and
> thus are running a current SAR with an older copy of Phoenix and
> Cornerstone
> (I think that is probably my state).
We're currently running the latest version of Phoenix and, according to
Paul's commentary, should be running an older version of Cornerstone
(this needs to be checked). As far as I can tell from the commentary on
the list, a few people at least have migrated to the latest Phoenix. I
will be doing so shortly myself. That's what we'll be releasing, so
that's what we'll test.
As far as the Serviceable/Composable discussion - that's one of the
reasons I want to see this thing go out the door. Once this version is
out we can start making major changes. The debate the other day made it
clear that we don't have a consensus, and that working one out is going
to take some time. It also made it clear that there are a number of
improvements and fixes in this version that it would be nice to get to
our user base before we start making architectural changes. We get this
out the door, we branch it so we can perform as-necessary bug-fixes on
the 2.1 code, and we move on.
The schedule is reasonable, but aggressive. That's by design. IMHO,
we've got to actually commit to an achievable, but marginally ambitious
schedule to generate some pressure to get a James release to completion.
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
