On 10/1/07, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There are still 12 tickets from the last sprint (great effort, BTW)
> left to check-in. The casual observer easily gets the impression that
> work is sporadic, uncoordinated and not target-oriented, in one word:
> chaotic.
Yes, of co
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 17:07 +0200, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
> Joe,
>
> 2007/10/1, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > [...]
> > And this is the biggest disconnect between Django's team and the
> > business world. If I went to my bosses and told them "It's done when
> > it's done" about our upcoming
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 12:18 -0700, Joe wrote:
[...]
> Are you sure there is no compromise on doing a "stable" tag every few
> months? Unless you religiously monitor the timelines and the google
> groups, it is a little difficult to pick a good time to tag the trunk
> between major merges and refac
Derek,
I agree with you that the waterfall method of software development is
broken and we don't use it here.
However, we do set deadlines and goals, and we try to make them an
accurate estimation of time required to complete work.
How do we do this? Using a lot of the techniques that you said
Malcolm,
I may not agree with everything you said, but I appreciate you taking
the time to write a response and address my concerns in a logical,
thoughtful manner .
Are you sure there is no compromise on doing a "stable" tag every few
months? Unless you religiously monitor the timelines and the
actually, "it's done when it's done" can be sold in a corporate
environment. it has the unfortunate characteristic of being the closest
thing to truth when modeling software development, and no amount of
pre-planning or chart-making is going to get you a more accurate answer.
some key facts t
How about a management FAQ?
And then... (you'll hate this): For each answer which is emotionally
unsatisfying, what are the smallest changes you could make which would
allow you to tweak the answer to be more satisfying?
For example: A simple, pretty, easily accessible page that allows
voting on
okay,okay, I'll just write up something and submit it :) I didn't see
any welcome or about page on the main site so I'll work on that and
include this stuff. Now back to coding.
Tim Chase wrote:
>> similar - sooo, do you think it's worthwhile to pull this together on a
>> about / welcome /
Am 2007-10-01 um 18:46 schrieb Tim Chase:
>> similar - sooo, do you think it's worthwhile to pull this together
>> on a
>> about / welcome / introduction page under a heading like "How Django
>> Works". Then when these comments come, they can be pointed to the
>> page. If you think it's worthw
On 10/1/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maintaining information in more than one place is a burden. We are all
> volunteers. Ergo, we try to keep the effort required to maintain stuff
> to a minimum. The reason I made the point that all of this information
> is available via Go
> similar - sooo, do you think it's worthwhile to pull this together on a
> about / welcome / introduction page under a heading like "How Django
> Works". Then when these comments come, they can be pointed to the
> page. If you think it's worthwhile, I'll post some text to a
> documentation
Malcolm,
well said - I just wasted a bunch of time writing a response that was
similar - sooo, do you think it's worthwhile to pull this together on a
about / welcome / introduction page under a heading like "How Django
Works". Then when these comments come, they can be pointed to the
page.
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 17:36 +0200, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
[...]
> I'd like to reword (and overstate) your statement: "If you're too lazy
> to search for the existing information yourself, you're not worth it."
> Is that correct?
Of course not. Please stop trying to inflame the conversation i
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 06:05 -0700, Joe wrote:
> > I'll pause for a moment here and step out of responding as a Django
> > user, and step into responding as Django's release manager: the answer
> > is "when it's ready". If you have a foolproof way of figuring out when
> > that will be, you should s
2007/10/1, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Of course, lower priority issues are going to languish a bit longer than
> more pressing needs. Somebody who wants to count open tickets instead of
> looking a bit deeper isn't going to like that, but since we're not
> catering to that audience
James,
2007/10/1, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not having copious documentation of everything the dev team is doing
> isn't the same as "making it a secret" ;)
I believe in "clarification by overstatement" :)
> Again, the easy way to see what's going on is to watch the Trac
> timeline
Joe,
2007/10/1, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [...]
> And this is the biggest disconnect between Django's team and the
> business world. If I went to my bosses and told them "It's done when
> it's done" about our upcoming product releases, I would get fired.
> Your response should be, "It's really
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 14:21 +0200, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
> James,
>
> thanks for your details answer. Let me put it right here: I'm not
> complaining about the lack of dedication or progress in the
> development of Django. It's more about visibility and marketing.
>
> 2007/10/1, James Benn
On 10/1/07, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It might be very obvious to you what is missing before 0.97 can be
> released because you're deeply involved with the development and
> exactly know it. However, I cannot easily find the answer on the web
> site. Searching the mailing a
> I'll pause for a moment here and step out of responding as a Django
> user, and step into responding as Django's release manager: the answer
> is "when it's ready". If you have a foolproof way of figuring out when
> that will be, you should stop writing code and start making millions
> of dollar
James,
thanks for your details answer. Let me put it right here: I'm not
complaining about the lack of dedication or progress in the
development of Django. It's more about visibility and marketing.
2007/10/1, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 10/1/07, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTE
> > > The documentation clearly advertises the current trunk
> > version, but the book refers to 0.96. The django book project seems to
> > have died in Feb. The site does not explain why the missing chapters
> > where never written/published and what the current state is.
>
> The book isn't dead,
On 10/1/07, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's no 0.97 version despites all that changes to SVN trunk for
> months.
Because we're not ready for a 0.97 release. The goals for the next
release and the general run up to Django 1.0 are pretty well-known,
even if they're not met
Stefan's observations have very interesting points. I am also looking
forwad to replies
cschand
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-use
Interesting observations.
I like the idea of a road map. But we do not have any full time people
working on Django. May be we can look at incrementing the version by
0.01every 500 SVN commits or so.
RS
On 10/1/07, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Over the last few weeks, w
There are some interesting points here, I look forward to the replies.
--Jon
On 10/1/07, Stefan Matthias Aust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Over the last few weeks, we used Django to successfully create
> prototype applications and it just worked great (well, large file
> upload is broken, I ha
Over the last few weeks, we used Django to successfully create
prototype applications and it just worked great (well, large file
upload is broken, I had to patch our Django version with #2070 a
couple of times). What a relieve compared to Java web development! A
big "thank you" to all developers a
27 matches
Mail list logo
