On 10/06/2015 11:39 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I'm all for ensuring we do more releases which this would do, so that
would be good. I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of the time-based cadance
on its own though, perhaps the ideal for me would be a similar maximum
bounding time on more features-based releases, plus point releases
with fixes as appropriate.
To quote myself from a semi related thread some months ago:
"I think we tend to be guilty of putting everything in together,
resulting in a big release that can then drag on a bit, making it more
difficult to respond quickly if the need arises, which in turn makes
us want to complete the cycle by including yet more stuff into the
release just to avoid it having to wait around for a while until the
following release happens."
Proton has not had a time-based cadence to-date, yet the situation you
describe has very much been a feature of that component, so I don't
think it is the cadence that is the issue there.
The most important criteria is that the release plan is clear and open
to anyone interested.
Personally, I think a time-based approach is a very good and simple way
of achieving that. The alternative is much more open communication
around the work targeted for each release, estimates of the time needed
and frequent updates on status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
