Alexander Limi wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:59:23 -0800, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I see both sides of the coin here, Wichert is correct in insisting on
shorter release cycles, Martin is correct that December is not the
month to do this. I won't have much time to review
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed
schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original
proposal.
i'll have about two or three days between christmas and january 9th,
On Nov 23, 2007 11:24 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed
schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original
proposal.
On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
we would need to know/decide there will be a 3.2 first, imho :)
I want to do a 3.2.
+1
same here — i didn't want to sound like i wouldn't. it just felt like
we hadn't ultimately decided on that yet.
andi
--
zeidler it consulting -
good morning :),
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
Of course that's the other side of the same coin. I completely
agree that we don't want that either. Hence my preference for
setting shortish (mid-Jan is only 1.5 months away), but realistic
deadlines based on the calendar,
Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Now that we have a new framework team it is time to start planning the
3.1 release. 3.1 is intended to be a low-risk upgrade which can follow
the 3.0 release quickly. The release cycle has to be short so we can
get things out to people.
