Dirk Reiners wrote: > Hi Allen, > > Allen Bierbaum wrote: > >>> I agree with using Trac. The only thing I have a slight problem with is >>> the idea of asking people to start a ticket for new things and then >>> combining that into the roadmap. I think it needs to be done the other >>> way around (within reason) >>> >>> I have a pretty simple (and possibly naive) suggestion here. >>> >>> 1. We make a webpage for each release/iteration (maybe the roadmap page) >>> 2. We make a list of things we know we want to go in and things we would >>> like to see worked on (Dirk and other leaders start the page and others >>> contribute to it) >>> 3. We prioritize the list a bit and turn the tasks into tickets >>> 4. People pick the tickets they are willing/able to work on and put >>> their names with them. If they can, they try to give a time estimate, >>> something like "done before the end of October" or something else simple. >>> 5. When a task is done, cross it off the list. When the tasks are all >>> done the iteration is ready to go. >>> > > I basically agree, but I think we can skip 1 to 3 for 1.8. For 2 it > might make more sense as there are bigger fish to fry. > True. I was thinking more about the 2.0 work flow. I agree that 1.8 should just finish off the remaining tasks and head out the door.
> >>> This is a very simple workflow and has very little overhead. It would >>> allow people to put in features that they or their company need that >>> others may not, but it also allows people to know what is coming and to >>> work together to plan the needs. >>> > > Don't underestimate step 3. That can be a lot of work. > Definitely. Note that I said a "simple" work flow not an easy one. All the items in the work flow will take time and effort but I hope they outlined steps will impose minimal overhead or unneeded effort. >>> It also gives new contributors a place to look for things they can help >>> with and it gives users a place to look to see what is going to be >>> worked on next and for what iteration. >>> >>> So what do y'all think? Would this work for OpenSG and are the core >>> developers interested in trying things this way for a while? If it >>> doesn't work we can always change. >>> >>> >> Does anyone have comments on this proposed method of operation? What do >> y'all think about using a roadmap to list the things we all agree need >> to be done and then prioritizing them and picking out the things you are >> willing/able to do? >> > > OK. > > >> I know I am an outsider >> > > You are certainly anything but. > I still don't know how to fully add a new fc or how to extend the system to rendering a new node core, so I think I am still an outsider. Maybe I am just a slightly more involved (ie. louder) outsider. :) -Allen > Dirk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > Opensg-core mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Opensg-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
