Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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.
I understand and agree.. MRJ > (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 >> >
