[Framework-Team] Reworking the PLIP Lifecycle | discussion
ems174 at psu.edu
Thu Feb 10 15:54:46 UTC 2011
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>> 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.
You're absolutely correct ( and I can't count ;) ).
What I mean to say is: "These are *so* close to being ready. Let's all push to get them finished ASAP. It'd be great to include them in 4.2"
More information about the Framework-Team