Thanks for the feedback on this thread.
There was some feedback specifically on the vote text. I've made the
amendment suggested by Tomas, and numbered the items as suggested by
Nicola. I did not convert to markdown.
The other discussions on this thread I think are useful things to think
about
>Of course the 3.0 release is kind of special because we are defining a
completely new API - the providers API - with the intention to have it
stable for many years to come. Any bugs in the API design for providers
will have to live with us at least until the 4.0 release and so it
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 09:47 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> On 07/10/2020 19:07, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 12:35:28PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > > The following items are required prerequisites for the first beta
> > > release:
> > [...]
> > > * Address 3.0beta1
On 07/10/2020 19:07, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 12:35:28PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> The following items are required prerequisites for the first beta release:
> [...]
>> * Address 3.0beta1 milestones.
>
> So we now have a list here, with the last item pointing to a
>
+1 to that. There is a reason why almost all the major projects
switched over to doing time based releases instead of feature
completeness based ones.
Of course the 3.0 release is kind of special because we are defining a
completely new API - the providers API - with the intention to have it
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 12:35:28PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> I had an action from the OTC meeting today to raise a vote on the OTC
> list of technical items still to be done. Here is my proposed vote text.
> There will be a subsequent vote on the "beta readiness checklist" which
> is a separate
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 12:35:28PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The following items are required prerequisites for the first beta release:
[...]
> * Address 3.0beta1 milestones.
So we now have a list here, with the last item pointing to a
different list. I suggest that we only have 1 list, and
I support the edit proposed by Tomas.
First comment that I have is that I'd prefer the first-level items to
be actually numbered, as done in the drafts: we might put a disclaimer
that the numbers are not indicative of priority and just meant to be
used to address (equally important) tasks by
On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 12:35 +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> I had an action from the OTC meeting today to raise a vote on the OTC
> list of technical items still to be done. Here is my proposed vote
> text.
> There will be a subsequent vote on the "beta readiness checklist"
> which
> is a separate
I had an action from the OTC meeting today to raise a vote on the OTC
list of technical items still to be done. Here is my proposed vote text.
There will be a subsequent vote on the "beta readiness checklist" which
is a separate list.
Feedback please on the proposed vote text below.
The
10 matches
Mail list logo
