Right. This is what I'll most likely be doing from now on since IBM's schedule (also most likely) won't match the current release plan.
-Elias Jeffrey Blattman wrote: > i had a rather large change recently where it would have made my > professional life much easier if i had committed it to 3.0 (vs. the > trunk and 3.1). that was about a month ago, and 3.0 was at RC 1. now i > (the professional "i") am up the creek if roller 3.1 doesn't release > sometime in the near future. > > but that's my problem, and i only brought it up because i *think* it's > an example of the way things should work. a less aggressive approach to > feature addition make sense. developers shouldn't worry about the > release number. work on features, and whatever release they fall into > depends on when they are complete. we shouldn't be targeting features > for a particular release. > > the problem is when features are worked on the trunk. then they are > forcefully committed to the next release. which is why it makes sense to > use the sandbox model for feature dev. in my professional life, we do > the same thing, except that we actually create CVS branches for feature > dev, and merge back into the trunk only when the feature is release > ready (well, that's how it works in theory). > > Elias Torres wrote: >> I've been with Roller for sometime now but it is until recently that I >> have been working closely with to the development lifecycle. At the end >> of 3.0 we submitted proposals for working on 3.1 and those got approved >> so we are making plans based on those proposals and dates estimates. >> However, there have been a couple or more proposals that appear last >> minute before code freeze and get submitted/implemented. I'm just trying >> to figure out our process and what's good practice and what's not. I'm >> not sure how would you feel if I submitted a few proposals this week on >> behalf of IBM's needs as opposed to waiting for 3.2. I'm not saying that >> we can't work like this, but I'm trying to understand what is acceptable >> or not to this community. I definitely don't want to misbehave in the >> friendly/cooperative environment we have today. >> >> As I look into the future of IBM and Roller I'm not sure we'll have tons >> of proposals closely tied to the schedule because we won't be able to >> keep up with Roller's short lifecycle. Our direction is going to be more >> like: get a feature implemented in whichever release it happens to fall >> under and we backport it to our internal version until we make the jump >> to let's say 4.0. >> >> -Elias >> >
