+1 On 9/16/09, Rein Henrichs <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
