[Framework-Team] Re: Review process: suggestions, and an offer
cs at comlounge.net
Thu Feb 7 17:49:26 UTC 2008
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Christian Scholz wrote:
> (sorry, hit send too soon)
>> To me it's unclear when coding should be happening. In practice it
>> might be in various ways. You might have a component already because
>> you needed it and want to get it into the core or you just have an
>> idea and only want to start coding once people think it's a good idea.
> I think there are two modes:
> 1) Code already exists (e.g. a third party product) and the PLIP
> submitter wants it improved and integrated into the core. In this case,
> there's little code to write, except some integration code maybe.
> 2) New functionality or improvement to existing core-only functionality.
> In this case, I don't think we should expect people to write much code
> before the PLIP is reviewed and accepted in principle, since otherwise
> they could be wasting their time.
I think so, too. The question is of course how much time is available
between PLIP submission and code submission. Maybe for #2 we need some
slightly different process where people should talk about their ideas a
bit sooner, e.g. before they write the PLIP or at least somewhat before
they submit it.
> We have rough timescales, and 3.1 has (had?) a published release date.
> However, that's no good when deadlines slip. We need to ensure we hit a
> certain amount of work (code + QA) otherwise our releases suck. The
> outside world is not going to look kindly on a release that is "on time"
> to a deadline we arbitrarily set but which is majorly buggy, completely
> underwhelming feature-wise or shoddily integrated.
I meant more that we should define (and document) the timespans between
releases are happening so everybody knows when the next chance and
deadline is. For 3.1 I know now, for the next releases I don't.
>> I also think the process needs to be better documented. As stated
>> elsewhere I had no idea what submitting a PLIP means and I just
>> changed the WF state which apparently wasn't the right thing ;-)
>> It would be good to maybe have different documents for the parties
>> involved what they have to do plus a high level document with the
> Personally, I would prefer a single document, which is easier to keep up
> to date. But we need to do this, definitely. I'm willing to help draft
> this if Andi and Wichert can join me.
Maybe it should also be easier to find, e.g. at dev.plone.org (at least
with a link). BTW; dev.plone.org only give a directory listing right
now, maybe it should redirect to /plone ?
>> And of course this calendar should be in somebody's responsibility
>> (preferably somebody from the framework team or the release manager).
(and if people want to use the Google Cal I am happy to hand it over. It
has some setup in terms of an HTML output via feedburner and might have
some Pipes for filtering soon, too).
Christian Scholz video blog: http://comlounge.tv
COM.lounge blog: http://mrtopf.de/blog
Luetticher Strasse 10 Skype: HerrTopf
52064 Aachen Homepage: http://comlounge.net
Tel: +49 241 400 730 0 E-Mail cs at comlounge.net
Fax: +49 241 979 00 850 IRC: MrTopf, Tao_T
connect with me: http://mrtopf.de/connect
More information about the Framework-Team