[Framework-Team] Re: proposed plone 3.1 timeframe

Andreas Zeidler az at zitc.de
Thu Nov 22 12:04:48 UTC 2007

good morning :),

On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
>> Of course that's the other side of the same coin. I completely  
>> agree that we don't want that either. Hence my preference for  
>> setting shortish (mid-Jan is only 1.5 months away), but realistic  
>> deadlines based on the calendar, what else is going on (e.g.  
>> sprints) and what work has been done to date.

i've just read my way through your discussion so far and have a hard  
time to decide where to start answering without repeating things too  
much.  so in short, i think there have been some very valid points  
from "both sides".  i completely agree we should have shorter and more  
predictable release cycle and i very much appreciate wichert's drive  
towards this goal.  on the other hand, i think martin's also right  
about too tight deadlines creating a sense of not being able to make  
them anyway and therefore decreasing motivation to even try.   i  
imagine a deadline (for bundle submission) in four weeks might work  
for a later smallish release, like 3.2 or 3.3 or 4.1 for that matter,  
but i think we should not try to push too hard, but instead maybe  
start with something like 6 or even 8 weeks (counted from the  
announcement) and try to successively shorten that span for every  
future minor release.  of course, this is especially true so shortly  
before christmas.

as a sidenote, the way it looks atm i will have some resources from  
now until a few days before christmas, but after that realistically  
not again until the second week of january.  that's to say i won't be  
able to start reviewing things before january 7th anyway.  but even  
not considering my personal schedule i'd be +1 to set the deadline for  
bundle/buildout submission to mid-january, say the 15th for example,  
have reviews done in the following two weeks (thinking of snow sprint  
to be a good opportunity to do some pair reviews with tomster) and  
allow people to fix things in response to the review for another week  
or so.  that would push the first pre-release to something like  
february 5th, which is 3 weeks later than wichert's proposal, btw.

other than that i'm +1 for
     - separating PLIP and implementation approval,
     - having a PLIP submission deadline very soon (november 30th?)
     - submitting review bundles as buildouts only, but a few pending  
minor issues like migration etc (should be minimal anyway) are okay
     - for having more minor releases in rapid succession
     - keeping the framework team for these, and even...
     - announcing the schedule for the next (minor) release right  
after or even before the pending release

however, one problem i see with the last point is that trunk, i.e.  
work towards 4.0, has already been significantly moving away from the  
3.0 and potential 3.1 branches.  that means additional work like  
regarding all the new (and old) bundles the more minor releases we  
do.  perhaps we could try to have intermediate merge & cleanup  
releases bringing some of the work done on branch back into a 3.x  
release without adding too many new features.  that's just something  
that springs to mind, though, but imho we need to discuss how to go  
about this as well.  not here and now, of course, and maybe not even  
that soon, since i expect the summit to tackle these questions, but i  
think we should keep that in mind when talking about further minor  



zeidler it consulting - http://zitc.de/ - info at zitc.de
friedelstraße 31 - 12047 berlin - telefon +49 30 25563779
pgp key at http://zitc.de/pgp - http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net/
plone 3.0.3 released! -- http://plone.org/products/plone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-framework-team/attachments/20071122/8c2e2afd/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.plone.org/pipermail/plone-framework-team/attachments/20071122/8c2e2afd/attachment.sig>

More information about the Framework-Team mailing list