That all makes sense to me. That's what I understood the plan to be! I think we're all in agreement, then. No-one wants waterfall development, and we all want to have the freedom to make appropriate judgments about risk and complexity, and to let smaller features arrive as and when they're ready. It sounds like Rick is busy writing all this down right now, but I think we're all agreed.
Ewan. -----Original Message----- From: Gregory Holt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 November 2010 19:05 To: Ewan Mellor Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Openstack] Freedom vs. Time-based process thread Sorry, my joke didn't translate well. Timed-releases are important. And knowing when features are scheduled for release is too. I think the question is more when it's too late to add a new feature to a specifically timed release. And, on that note, I'm with what Rick said. Major stuff should be decided on early; minor stuff up to the freeze point; bugfixes always go; make sure blueprints exist for each new feature so documentationalists can do their work. Who decides what's major and minor? Well, the community I guess. Whether or not it'll break anything else around it. And Rick would get the final vote I'd guess. I just grabbed the subject from the IRC meeting log, and yeah, it's not exactly right. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
