1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C201106140330.56794.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="005567.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="005577.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion</H1>
<B>Maarten Vanraes</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Release%20cycles%20proposals%2C%20and%20discussion&In-Reply-To=%3C201106140330.56794.maarten.vanraes%40gmail.com%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion">maarten.vanraes at gmail.com
</A><BR>
<I>Tue Jun 14 03:30:56 CEST 2011</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005567.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005577.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5576">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5576">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5576">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5576">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Op dinsdag 14 juni 2011 01:02:51 schreef Michael Scherer:
><i> Le lundi 13 juin 2011 à 15:51 +0300, Thomas Backlund a écrit :
</I>><i> > Wolfgang Bornath skrev 13.6.2011 15:20:
</I>><i> > > About the cycles:
</I>><i> > >
</I>><i> > > The 9-months seem to be a compromise - but I start to ask why we need
</I>><i> > > such a fixed statement (which it would be, once published). We need a
</I>><i> > > schedule for each cycle, that's true. Without a schedule we would
</I>><i> > > never finish anything. But how about taking 9 months only as a "nice
</I>><i> > > to meet" target, leaving us the option to set a roadmap after setting
</I>><i> > > the specs of the next release - we could then go for a 8 or 10 months
</I>><i> > > roadmap, depending on the specs.
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > This is somewhat like what I had in my mind to write too, but you beat
</I>><i> > me to it :)
</I>><i> >
</I>><i> > It could allow us to adapt a little for upstream releases.
</I>><i> > But should we then decide that the limit is +/- 1 month ?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> There is 2 problem :
</I>><i> - for release of what software ?
</I>><i> - what if the upstream planning is wrong, and their releases is late
</I>><i> ( as it happened when I was a trainee in Mandrakesoft, with xfree being
</I>><i> 3 months late and the distribution still shipping a broken pre release )
</I>><i>
</I>><i> > Obviously there will still be people complaining that "you waited 10
</I>><i> > months... if you had extended with ~2 more weeks... "this" or "that"
</I>><i> > package would have been available too... and so on....
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Yes, there will be.
</I>><i> So let's be realist, 9 months with +/- 1 month is just 10 months +
</I>><i> people complaining to have 10,5 months.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> We will never use the -1 month, because there will always be something
</I>><i> worth waiting.
</I>
actually, the real reason would be more to plan for whatever features you're
going to implement and the time it takes to do them. if that's 8 months, it's
8 months, if that's 9 or 10months, that's what it is.
We proved that we can take a planning and follow it through, even the last
release_critical one was solved _just_in_time_...
imho, we need to decide now on a sort of 9month period, look at what we're
going to do, then estimating how long it takes (with enough lenience), then
make a real planning for that, and stick to it, if features are not ready,
drop those features for next release, and make sure to fix all the
release_criticals.
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="005567.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="005577.html">[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#5576">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#5576">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#5576">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#5576">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
