Mark Johnson wrote:
>
>
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>> I'm happy with the responses and support the case as specified.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Darren J Moffat
>> Its too bad you weren't at todays meeting then -- the case was
>> extended to cover your concerns. Can we get a quorum via e-mail to
>> approve the case ahead of timeout (I'm not sure there is precedent
>> for this). Is the project team OK with waiting another week for
>> approval? (It certainly appears that the project will be approved as
>> specified.)
>
> We are targeting b100 so the original timeout on
> Friday would be better for us. :-)
>
> I had asked at the meeting, that if Darren was OK with
> the responses, if it was OK to leave the timer on
> Friday.. I thought folks agreed to that, but I
> didn't see it in the status.
Hmm... maybe it was let run, not extended? Letting it run to Friday
certainly seems fair enough to me.
As a general rule of thumb, it would be better next time to submit the
fast track a build or two *ahead* of your needed integration date.
While fast tracks often take less than a week to complete, they
occasionally need to run for another week or two, and submission of case
materials early reduces the likelihood of running into ARC-incurred delays.
(Never mind the fact that I am certain that the gatekeepers would rather
avoid the crowding of projects that seems to happen in the final builds
before a release. In my estimation, the amount of new code that seems
to be targeting b100 is a bit disconcerting.)
-- Garrett
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> MRJ
>
