Hash: SHA1

- --On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 16:33:32 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake" 

> If the developers were to actually take a step back and say, "Hey... instead
> of working on these dozen different features, I should work on three and help
> someone review another three..." We wouldn't have this problem.

Isn't that the point of the feature freeze period?  To put 'development' off to 
the side and spend the time reviewing what is pending?

If ppl find it so inconviencing to not be able to submit patches becaus we're 
in a feature freeze, then won't that motivate them to do some review, get the 
patches cleared so that they *can* move on?

Someone (you, I think) advocated a '3 weeks and then dump the rest of the 
patches' (not quote as  strong of wording, but similar) ... why not split the 
patches list up:

submitted patches, not reviewed
reviewed patches, needs work, waiting on author
reviewed patches, ready for commit.

Once feature freeze started, the first list should only get small patches to 
it, easily reviewed and committed ... then, focus on reviewing list A and move 
the patch to list B or commit it ... once list A is cleared off, we go into 
Beta ... if a patch on list B gets re-submitted before Beta, it gets reviewed 
and either committed, or punt'd to the next release ...

That leaves Freeze -> Beta being as long as it takes to get thorugh List A ... 
and the only thing punt'd to the next release being that which really isn't 
ready ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]                              MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to