On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:36 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess
Great work!
In general, I'd like to give the fixed release
Hi,
at the risk of repeating myself: This all reminds me very much of
handling submissions to scientific journals. They appear in regular
intervals and have a review process in place to decide what goes in.
One difference there, however, is how the review process is organized.
Usually,
On 2/26/11 9:22 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Alec Mitchellale...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichtingha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddyele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document:
On 2011-2-25 21:02, Elizabeth Leddy wrote:
I cannot remember any Plone releases that only took 6 months - even
when we tried hard. I'd usually expect a 50% overrun from any stated
timeline, so while aiming for 6 months we can manage to do a release
after 9 months. We'd have to
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess
Great work!
Agreed! This has the
Alec Mitchell ale...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess
On 26 February 2011 20:06, Alec Mitchell ale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document:
I cannot remember any Plone releases that only took 6 months - even
when we tried hard. I'd usually expect a 50% overrun from any stated
timeline, so while aiming for 6 months we can manage to do a release
after 9 months. We'd have to aim for a 3-4 months cycle to actually be
able to do two
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Feel free to respond over email or just edit the
document: http://dev.plone.org/plone/wiki/PlipProcess
Great work!
In general, I'd like to give the fixed release schedule a 6 month test
drive. If it sucks we can go back
Hey guys -
After the meeting I have drafted some documentation for the new PLIP Life
Cycle as would be seem from an implementors perspective. I tried to be
detailed so the process was clear and also came across a few questions (they
are indicated with a number in brackets plus an explanation at
On 10 February 2011 04:00, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
1) Consider me +1000 on this
2) Let's plan on faster/regular/smaller releases
3) Review process should be a process of continuous feedback, not the stop
doing things so we can maybe look at it over the next 6 weeks
4) We need to
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele ems...@psu.edu wrote:
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net writes:
Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu writes:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
+1,
Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net writes:
Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu writes:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
+1, though I expected to gather more contradicting perspectives before
weighing in in.
Ok, so Eric I think we're a go. Lets
On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
Ross Patterson m...@rpatterson.net writes:
Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu writes:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
+1, though I expected to gather more contradicting perspectives before
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members
think
Liz
I agree that the deadline issue isn't a major one, since the release
itself would provide a natural set of deadlines and being pushed to a
Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu writes:
Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members think
+1, though I expected to gather more contradicting perspectives before
weighing in in.
Ross
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Wichert Akkerman
wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
On 14-01-2011 22:24, Elizabeth Leddy wrote:
Whaddup FWT -
I would like to get a conversation going about reworking the PLIP
process. We had some good conversations on IRC about making the process
mor continuous so I want to formalize the discussion a bit. Here are my
initial thoughts on how to
On 16 January 2011 21:07, Geir Bækholt pl...@baekholt.com wrote:
On 14-01-2011 22:24, Elizabeth Leddy wrote:
Whaddup FWT -
I would like to get a conversation going about reworking the PLIP
process. We had some good conversations on IRC about making the process
mor continuous so I want to
On 2011-1-16 22:46, Martin Aspeli wrote:
I suspect they can be overcome by release managers setting target
dates, asking people to contribute to a particular milestone date for
a particular planned release, but not holding up a release if people
slip. Many smaller deadlines can be better than
Hi.
Thanks for pushing out those thoughts to the mailing list. I'm not
much on IRC lately, so I likely missed a lot of the discussions
leading up to this.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Elizabeth Leddy ele...@umich.edu wrote:
In general, let's move away from the fixed timeline of announcing,
Hi Elizabeth,
This is a little tl;dr for my current state of flu, but I wanted to
make one point: I, for one, need deadlines to get around to doing
things. Specific release dates and well-thought-out PLIP timetables
really help me structure my work and get things done and plan.
A slightly more
21 matches
Mail list logo
