Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-09 Thread Tomas Mraz
On Thu, 2020-10-08 at 12:00 +, Salz, Rich wrote: > >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 >

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-08 Thread Matt Caswell
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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-08 Thread Salz, Rich
>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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-08 Thread Tomas Mraz
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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-08 Thread Matt Caswell
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 >

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-08 Thread Tomas Mraz
+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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-07 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-07 Thread Kurt Roeckx
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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-07 Thread Nicola Tuveri
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

Re: Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-07 Thread Tomas Mraz
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

Vote proposal: Technical items still to be done

2020-10-07 Thread Matt Caswell
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