Hello, As I'm sure you're all aware, are two basic tensions in release management: Pick a set of features, or pick a deadline. We seem to be in agreement for the release strategy of major puppet releases (we use the latter) but there is some advocacy on both sides for smaller (point-point) releases.
I would like to suggest compromise solution that we appear to be converging on anyway: Mark certain tickets as release blockers, or use a certain priority level (high or greater) as an ad-hoc indicator that a ticket is blocking (per James); ensure that they are fixed; and then include any other completed tickets when packaging the release. This trades a certain amount of timeline certainty for a greater certainty that these issues will be addressed in the given release. This seems like a fair trade for minor releases. Markus raised an objection to my use of the term "blocker" in a call today, but it seems like the appropriate term to use for a ticket that has otherwise been described as "show-stopping" or "really should be fixed [for this release]". I'm also not married to this term if swapping it out will help us arrive at a good solution. How does this feel to you folks? -- Rein Henrichs http://reductivelabs.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
