From dev-return-87971-apmail-cocoon-dev-archive=cocoon.apache.org@cocoon.apache.org Mon Jun 19 16:24:28 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61400 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2006 16:24:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Jun 2006 16:24:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 33094 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jun 2006 16:24:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 33029 invoked by uid 500); 19 Jun 2006 16:24:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 33018 invoked by uid 99); 19 Jun 2006 16:24:24 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:24:24 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [217.12.11.36] (HELO smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com) (217.12.11.36) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 09:24:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 86723 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2006 16:00:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.249?) (reinhard?poetz@86.59.20.138 with plain) by smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2006 16:00:22 -0000 Message-ID: <4496CA12.4030108@apache.org> Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:00:18 +0200 From: Reinhard Poetz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: Time based release cylces References: <448E501B.80701@apache.org> <448F0936.8070304@apache.org> <448FEF80.1020800@apache.org> <448FF301.3010606@apache.org> <44900135.9010002@apache.org> <4490183E.6060206@dslextreme.com> <4492BFCD.3060805@apache.org> <44953D99.2010106@apache.org> <4496C856.9050301@nada.kth.se> In-Reply-To: <4496C856.9050301@nada.kth.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Daniel Fagerstrom wrote: > Reinhard Poetz skrev: > >> Carsten Ziegeler wrote: >> >>> Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>>> I have no problem with this release as a first step, but I'd >>>> hesitate to even call it 2.2M1. OTOH, if I had an idea of what our >>>> subsequent milestones are this might make more sense to me. >>>> >>> >>> Good point! Now, if you something label milestone or beta people have a >>> specific expectation. I don't think we meet these expectations, so I >>> would suggest calling this release alpha. >> >> >> Before we decide what we call the releases exactly I want to draw our >> attention to a decision we made long time ago. We agreed that we want >> to change to time-based release cycles instead of the feature-driven >> releases we had up to now which wasn't helpful in becoming more agile. >> >> Taking this into consideration I think we can stick with giving our >> releases the "milestone" postfix. The name "milestone" only says that >> another period of development is over ("time-boxing"). >> >> We only need to decide how long the periods between releases should >> be. I guess this will highly depend on the module. The most important >> modules (e.g. cocoon-core, cocoon-forms, cocoon-template, >> cocoon-javaflow, the archetypes, the deployment plugin) should be >> released every 4 weeks, other modules every 3 months and there will be >> modules that will only be released if required. Additionally we should >> coordinate the release cycles so that at least twice a year, we >> release everything at the same time (IIUC the Eclipse project wants to >> make this happen for their universe with the "Callisto" initiative). >> > +1 > > I would however suggest that we follow the example from Eclipse and have > a milestone release every 6:th week instead of every 4:th. Considering > that we probably want to discourage large changes and encourage testing > the week before each release it gives us the possibility to develop 5/6 > of the time instead of 3/4. I don't have a strong opinion on the length of the period as long as we don't count in years ;-) so yes, every 6th week is fine for me. -- Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach {Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon} web(log): http://www.poetz.cc -------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de