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 - ht
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
> >
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
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,
and i'm sure there will be client work
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 bund
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 bundles over New
Year for
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,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
So by now a number of you have complained that this schedule does not
work very well. So I think it is time for me to mention another reason I
have for setting a short deadline, even if that is not attainable for
most people: at the moment almost all big development is de
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:45:36 +, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I think it is much more important to do a time-based released then a
>> feature-based release. If we do the letter we will end up waiting
>> months before things are ready and we will end up with a 3.1 in june
>>
from following martin's and wichert's thread so far, i'd like to pick
up the idea of doing a 3.1 and 3.2 release in relative quick
succession by the same framework team.
in effect, we would be splitting up what is currently envisioned as
3.1 into two separate releases. this would enable us
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
I think it is much more important to do a time-based released then a
feature-based release. If we do the letter we will end up waiting months
before things are ready and we will end up with a 3.1 in june and 4.0 in
2009.
Oh, I agree (at least for 3.x releases - for 4.x I
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
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. Here is my proposal:
- all proposed
13 matches
Mail list logo
