Hello,
we had a discussion in irc, of which Walter posted the log. The current
proposal on the table is
On 31/10
* Release 0.100
* Create a branch
* Discuss the 0.102 features
* Schedule another 6 months cycle
Other outcomes
* Australia would be using 0.101 in some schools. I think that would
[11:23] dnarvaez_: I think we need an irc discussion of
the release schedule
[11:23] email is too slow for a discussion
[11:24] walterbender, +1, i just was thinking the same
[11:24] I'm happy to have an irc discussion when I'm around
[11:24] lets see if gonzalo_odiard is here?
[11:24] dnarva
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>> On 8 October 2013 15:18, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I think we should certainly *not* branch until
On 8 October 2013 17:19, Walter Bender wrote:
> We (Gonzalo and I) have some new features we'd like to land in 102.
> How to proceed? Can we schedule an IRC discussion?
Maybe just start a "0.102 features" email thread? The details of what you
would like to land and a rough timeframe would be he
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 8 October 2013 15:18, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez
>> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think we should certainly *not* branch until January/Australia
>> > release. If
>> > anyone disagrees now i
On 8 October 2013 15:14, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Continuos development do not work well with downstream/upstream projects.
>
Well, I think that statement would need to be justified.
>
> We need go back to release cycles aligned with Fedora/Gnome if possible.
>
See, I'm not sure that's even p
On 8 October 2013 15:18, Peter Robinson wrote:
> It depends if it's proper "continuous development" where it's all
> small and incremental improvements with the platform being constantly
> usable and features and it also depends on the end users of the
> product.
I agree and I don't think we ar
On 8 October 2013 15:18, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we should certainly *not* branch until January/Australia
> release. If
> > anyone disagrees now it's the time to speak up.
>
> I think not forking should be fine as l
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we should certainly *not* branch until January/Australia release. If
> anyone disagrees now it's the time to speak up.
I think not forking should be fine as long as people are happy to hold
off from landing any new big featu
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we should certainly *not* branch until January/Australia release.
> If anyone disagrees now it's the time to speak up.
>
> Really, looking forward I think we should switch to continuous development
> and never branch again. B
Hi,
I think we should certainly *not* branch until January/Australia release.
If anyone disagrees now it's the time to speak up.
Really, looking forward I think we should switch to continuous development
and never branch again. But that certainly will require more discussion.
On 8 October 2013
If a branch is going to be declared, we will need to address it in
Pootle as well. Please advise.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 8 October 2013 00:43, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez
>> wrote:
>> > It sounds like it might b
On 8 October 2013 00:43, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
> > It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback
> from
> > real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good
> idea to
> > "refocus" 0.100 around
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback from
> real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good idea to
> "refocus" 0.100 around this deployment. So
>
> 1 Stay in bugfixing mode until January
On 4 October 2013 00:06, James Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:47:08AM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> > For the record, this is the chat we had today in #sugar dnarvaez, tch
> and me:
> >
> > dnarvaez, I'm thinking about the release..
> > heh me too a bit...
> > somewhat lost
> >
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:47:08AM -0300, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> For the record, this is the chat we had today in #sugar dnarvaez, tch and me:
>
> dnarvaez, I'm thinking about the release..
> heh me too a bit...
> somewhat lost
> I'm not sure if anyone depends on 0.100 being released soon bt
On 3 October 2013 17:55, Chris Leonard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Narvaez
> wrote:
> > It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback
> from
> > real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good
> idea to
> > "refocus" 0.100 around
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback from
> real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good idea to
> "refocus" 0.100 around this deployment. So
>
> 1 Stay in bugfixing mode until Januar
It sounds like it might be an opportunity for upstream to get feedback from
real users, which we need desperately. So I think it would be a good idea
to "refocus" 0.100 around this deployment. So
1 Stay in bugfixing mode until January or when things are ready anyway.
2 Make sure web activities wor
Sorry I was not able to join the earlier discussion.
One data point:
In Australia, we are planning to release Sugar 100 (plus some patches
we hope to upstream to Sugar 102) to a few schools for extensive
testing (the build we are calling 1B). The intention is a
broader-based release of Sugar 100
For the record, this is the chat we had today in #sugar dnarvaez, tch and me:
dnarvaez, I'm thinking about the release..
heh me too a bit...
somewhat lost
I'm not sure if anyone depends on 0.100 being released soon btw
dnarvaez, yeah
on one hand, people had rpms to test just recently
yeah,
Hi,
so the situation isn't changed much. Very few bug fixes landed, very few
bug reports (which probably means little testing). I personally wouldn't
feel comfortable releasing 0.100 or code freezing, so I tend to think we
should just plan for 0.99.5 in another 4 weeks, on the 31 Oct.
Thoughts?
On 03/26/2013 01:20 PM, Walter Bender wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
Hello,
we are pretty late in the cycle for the next release without much
development having been landed on the master branch. At this point I
think we need to consider what our options are. If w
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we are pretty late in the cycle for the next release without much
> development having been landed on the master branch. At this point I
> think we need to consider what our options are. If we had to release 6
> months after 0.98.
Hello,
we are pretty late in the cycle for the next release without much
development having been landed on the master branch. At this point I
think we need to consider what our options are. If we had to release 6
months after 0.98.0, that would be the beginning of June, thus only 2
months and half
25 matches
Mail list logo
