[Framework-Team] Reworking the PLIP Lifecycle | discussion
alecpm at gmail.com
Thu Feb 10 15:36:54 UTC 2011
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Eric Steele <ems174 at psu.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Ross Patterson wrote:
>> Ross Patterson <me at rpatterson.net> writes:
>>> Elizabeth Leddy <eleddy at umich.edu> writes:
>>>> Thanks for all the feedback guys! Curious what current team members think????
>>> +1, though I expected to gather more contradicting perspectives before
>>> weighing in in.
>> Ok, so Eric I think we're a go. Lets schedule another FWT meeting and
>> hammer out the details.
>> Liz, get ready! :-)
> Yes, sorry I never managed to respond to this. I have 12 different theses sitting in my drafts folder and never quite managed to accurately capture what I wanted to say.
> 1) Consider me +1000 on this
> 2) Let's plan on faster/regular/smaller releases
> 3) Review process should be a process of continuous feedback, not the "stop doing things so we can maybe look at it over the next 6 weeks"
> 4) We need to be able to adapt to ideas that happen in the run-up to a release (see Geir's discovery of other places contentlistings could be used)
> 4) 4.2 should be focused on getting events, collections, content listings, search results. These need to happen.
> 5) Let's chat about this on Tuesday
These all sound good to me, but I'd note that #4-2 is, in a sense,
antithetical to 2, 3, and 4-1. If we want to have small fast releases
with continuous review, then it's probably not a good idea to define
in advance the new features that "need to happen" for a given release.
To me, having small quick releases means that features only get into
a release if they're ready in time for a scheduled alpha or similar,
not because they are "important".
In this case the features are already nearly ready, so it's _probably_
a safe bet they'll be a part of 4.2, but if we start thinking of
releases as bundles of specific features then we're heading right back
to where we were.
More information about the Framework-Team