Raphael Ritz wrote:
Helge Tesdal wrote:
[..]
How about always keeping half or a third of the previous team on the
next team. Unless we're doing that already. :)
I like that idea. Currently I am the only one who continued
from the previous team and our process also changed
somewhat.
This is
Helge Tesdal wrote:
[..]
How about always keeping half or a third of the previous team on the
next team. Unless we're doing that already. :)
I like that idea. Currently I am the only one who continued
from the previous team and our process also changed
somewhat.
Raphael
--
___
On 18. feb. 2008, at 13:41, Tom Lazar wrote:
On 18.02.2008, at 11:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
There have been various good ideas about how to improve the
process. I
+1 me, too. i also want to definitley stay on for 3.2, as well,
which will then have a much more streamlined process.
How abo
On 18.02.2008, at 11:41, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Thanks Danny,
There have been various good ideas about how to improve the process. I
think right now we need to focus on finishing the release, but we
should definitely capture the lessons learned afterwards and write up
a clearer process, includin
Thanks Danny,
There have been various good ideas about how to improve the process. I
think right now we need to focus on finishing the release, but we
should definitely capture the lessons learned afterwards and write up
a clearer process, including some guidance on appropriate tools.
Matt Bowen
Hi folks,
I have been thinking (yes, I try that occasionally) and I must say
that we really need some sort of better tooling for the entire review
process. It is all too scattered if you ask me. I really don't know
where I have to find what I need to know for reviewing. Plone.org,
track,
