I'm not comfortable with the idea of putting improvements in a patch
line but I will not do anything to try to stop it being done.
Regards,
Alan
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Here is my proposal for defining the exit criteria for this release
stream. I would like to volunteer to lead the 1.1.1
Here is my proposal for defining the exit criteria for this release stream. I would like to
volunteer to lead the 1.1.1 release. Please respond if that is acceptable to you.
*Goals*
This is a maintenance release and as such it will be limited to:
*1. Bug fixes.*
There are approximately 50
+1...very acceptable. Thanks for taking on 1.1.1. Matt...I know its a
tremendous amount of work. I would be happy to lend a hand.
Jeff
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Here is my proposal for defining the exit criteria for this release
stream. I would like to volunteer to lead the 1.1.1 release.
Matt,
This is good. However, I think it's useful to think in terms of a
1.1.x release stream, or at least two 1.1.x releases. Where 1.1.1 is
going to address our worst/highest priority problems. 1.1.x should be
very soon (a few weeks?) after 1.1. This would be followed by a 1.1.2
which I
Kevan, I think that sounds like a good compromise. I'll create a 1.1.2 in JIRA. This will be part
of the triage process then.
Kevan Miller wrote:
Matt,
This is good. However, I think it's useful to think in terms of a 1.1.x
release stream, or at least two 1.1.x releases. Where 1.1.1 is
I think this looks great except for one item. I think the release
should be time boxed. I'm hoping for 2 weeks max and it ships. If we
find something critical we move up the time, but 2 weeks would be the
max time. Three weeks would be ok also.
-dain
On Jun 16, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Matt
I like the plan and I like dain's timebox suggestion.
I think 2 weeks as a goal is ok and I hope we can get
1.1.1 out in 3 weeks.
thanks
david jencks
--- Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this looks great except for one item. I
think the release
should be time boxed. I'm
