[Framework-Team] Re: PLIP deadline overly aggressive?

[Ross Patterson]

Matthew Wilkes
<matthew at matthewwilkes.co.uk> writes:

> On 20 Jun 2009, at 19:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
>
>> Isn't 4.0 deliberately a "short-hop" release, with minimal new
>> feautres,
>> mostly intended to move the platform forward (to modern versions of
>> Zope, Python, CMF)?  Keeping the window short emphasizes that fact, at
>> least to my outsider's eyes.
>
> Hmm, the way I see it is that the timeline is deliberately short as
> 4.0 is an intermediate release.  Trunk is the innovative, new thing,
> 4.0 is incremental upgrades that go beyond a 3.x release.  In fact,
> the release was almost called 3.5 or similar.
>
> I don't know how I feel about this, the period is awfully short, but
> I'm probably leaning towards short keeps things from getting too
> ambitious.

To clarify, I'm definitely on board with the spirit of moving quickly.
My concern is that in moving quickly we'll end up missing discussion
that needed to happen and that without that discussion we'll end up with
a release that is technically short-sighted, demonstrates poor
consideration of impacts to the wider community, or any other negative
that can result from moving too quickly.

So maybe we should re-phrase the question.  How fast is *too* fast?
What *are* the minimum requirements for discussion of a backwards
incompatible major release?

Ross