Le mardi 14 juin 2011 à 03:30 +0200, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : > Op dinsdag 14 juni 2011 01:02:51 schreef Michael Scherer: > > Le lundi 13 juin 2011 à 15:51 +0300, Thomas Backlund a écrit : > > > Wolfgang Bornath skrev 13.6.2011 15:20: > > > Obviously there will still be people complaining that "you waited 10 > > > months... if you had extended with ~2 more weeks... "this" or "that" > > > package would have been available too... and so on.... > > > > Yes, there will be. > > So let's be realist, 9 months with +/- 1 month is just 10 months + > > people complaining to have 10,5 months. > > > > We will never use the -1 month, because there will always be something > > worth waiting. > > actually, the real reason would be more to plan for whatever features you're > going to implement and the time it takes to do them. if that's 8 months, it's > 8 months, if that's 9 or 10months, that's what it is.
See my answer to wobo. > We proved that we can take a planning and follow it through, even the last > release_critical one was solved _just_in_time_... I still think the codecs stuff should not have been release_critical, as we could do the update later. > imho, we need to decide now on a sort of 9month period, look at what we're > going to do, then estimating how long it takes (with enough lenience), then > make a real planning for that, and stick to it, if features are not ready, > drop those features for next release, and make sure to fix all the > release_criticals. Great, so can you start by telling how long it will take for the feature you plan to work on ? -- Michael Scherer
