|
|
Jake Mannix 2012-02-22, 12:24
On recent threads on the dev@ list, and discussions off-list, it's pretty clear that we need to have "cleanup" be a priority for the next release.
How about this for a formal proposal: - The 0.7 release will have issues (both new and on JIRA) be primarily focused on bugfixes / cleanup / API-refactoring / etc, with "new feature"-work only coming in when it's been pushed off for too long, and is close to completion. - All non-"cleanup" items will still be tracked and discussed, but JIRA-tickets related to them will be marked 0.8 at the earliest, and they won't be committed until 0.7 goes out. If we're able to wrap this release up cleanly and get quickly moving on to new features again, maybe we can try this on a more regular basis, with even releases being feature-work, and odd releases being maintenance and cleanup (and hopefully having much shorter turnaround time).
What say ye?
-jake
+
Jake Mannix 2012-02-22, 12:24
Grant Ingersoll 2012-02-22, 13:06
On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:24 AM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> On recent threads on the dev@ list, and discussions off-list, it's pretty > clear that we need to have "cleanup" be a priority for the next release. > > How about this for a formal proposal: > > > - The 0.7 release will have issues (both new and on JIRA) be primarily > focused on bugfixes / cleanup / API-refactoring / etc, with "new > feature"-work only coming in when it's been pushed off for too long, and is > close to completion. > - All non-"cleanup" items will still be tracked and discussed, but > JIRA-tickets related to them will be marked 0.8 at the earliest, and they > won't be committed until 0.7 goes out. >
I like the idea. At a minimum, I think our focus for 0.7 should be on cleanup. I do know there are some long standing new issues that people worked hard to complete for 0.7 (PCA, for instance) that seem reasonable to add. On the whole, though, I'd say we shoot for cleaning up and releasing in say the 2-3 mos. time frame. > > If we're able to wrap this release up cleanly and get quickly moving on to > new features again, maybe we can try this on a more regular basis, with > even releases being feature-work, and odd releases being maintenance and > cleanup (and hopefully having much shorter turnaround time). > > What say ye? > > -jake
+
Grant Ingersoll 2012-02-22, 13:06
Ted Dunning 2012-02-22, 14:35
Aye say I.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Jake Mannix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If we're able to wrap this release up cleanly and get quickly moving on to > new features again, maybe we can try this on a more regular basis, with > even releases being feature-work, and odd releases being maintenance and > cleanup (and hopefully having much shorter turnaround time). > > What say ye?
+
Ted Dunning 2012-02-22, 14:35
Shannon Quinn 2012-02-22, 14:41
I say aye.
iPhone'd
On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:35, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aye say I. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Jake Mannix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> If we're able to wrap this release up cleanly and get quickly moving on to >> new features again, maybe we can try this on a more regular basis, with >> even releases being feature-work, and odd releases being maintenance and >> cleanup (and hopefully having much shorter turnaround time). >> >> What say ye?
+
Shannon Quinn 2012-02-22, 14:41
Jeff Eastman 2012-02-22, 15:42
I'll go for aye aye maties, shall we aim for end of May?
On 2/22/12 7:41 AM, Shannon Quinn wrote: > I say aye. > > iPhone'd > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:35, Ted Dunning<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Aye say I. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 22, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Jake Mannix<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> If we're able to wrap this release up cleanly and get quickly moving on to >>> new features again, maybe we can try this on a more regular basis, with >>> even releases being feature-work, and odd releases being maintenance and >>> cleanup (and hopefully having much shorter turnaround time). >>> >>> What say ye? >
+
Jeff Eastman 2012-02-22, 15:42
|
|