[Framework-Team] Re: proposed plone 3.1 timeframe
ree at ree.hu
Thu Nov 22 07:16:30 UTC 2007
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:45:36 +0000, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> I think it is much more important to do a time-based released then a
>> feature-based release. If we do the letter we will end up waiting
>> months before things are ready and we will end up with a 3.1 in june
>> and 4.0 in 2009.
> Oh, I agree (at least for 3.x releases - for 4.x I think we may need a
> slightly different balance). I just don't think your proposed times are
> realistic given how I've observed most people work.
> Or, let me put it another way: Several developers (myself included) have
> taken aim at getting things into 3.1. It feels a bit unfair to be given
> a very short amount of time from announcement to deadline. It feels
> doubly unfair to be expected to deliver that over what is a family
> holiday for a lot of people.
> This is of course not supposed to be a big problem (that's part of the
> point of .x releases), but there's still a psychological draw from
> having a deadline and a release to work towards. Striking a balance is
I'd like to join Martin with this and let me describe the state of kss.
We are targeting a kss core release that will include new improvements and
for Plone it would mean bigger speed, better logging, providing some
asked-for core features (like comma separated selectors in the syntax
Obviously we have started planning for this long ago, and our roadmap is
set do do the work by the end of December, and get a stable release in
So the deadlines set up by Wichert are unrealistic for us to meet. Still
no big problem: we go on with the work anyway and if the new kss version
won't get into 3.1, it will get into one of the next releases.
However the question arises: if all or most package makers are in the
same situation, then what's the point in pushing out a 3.1 but without
most improvements that people target for it? Would not this be more like
a 3.0.4 release then 3.1?
I don't - by no means - suggest to push 3.1 release for June but deadline
in the second half of January would be more realistic for us. Still, I
understand the other concerns as well.
More information about the Framework-Team