forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
Date Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:27:09 GMT
Gav... wrote:
> <quote who="David Crossley">
> > Gav.... wrote:
> >>
> >> Just on a year a go, a Jira Issue was set up entitled 'Forrest Strategy
> >> and
> >> direction' - seems appropriate to revisit that issue and see what ideas
> >> there have been dealt with, what we still need to deal with and what we
> >> can
> >> drop.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (Strange how a jira issue of Critical Priority is also unscheduled, just
> >> seems a little odd to me)
> >
> > We can only schedule an issue to be fixed before the
> > next release when there is something to be actually done.
> > That FOR-630 is just a bag of notes. I reckon that we have
> > already extracted any that really need to be done for
> > the 0.8 release.
> Ok, so do you think it should be closed?

No. It has other stuff beyond 0.8 that is not yet attended to.

> > Perhaps there are more, but really we are trying to trim
> > the list down, rather than find more :-)
> Absolutely, I thought it relevent to this thread so just
> thought it worth a mention, otherwise why have it in the
> Jira for a year sitting there and not being useful.

So that people can get frustrated by it and eventually
do something about it. Only partially joking.

I reckon that is is still useful. Some more of the items
need to eventually be split off into their own issues.

I say eventually because i am desperately trying to
focus us on the release.

> You may have noticed I just started to go through some of
> the unscheduled issues to see if any could be revisited,
> fixed, closed or left as is. As has been pointed out before
> users (that term again) get disheartened to see their issues
> sat there not been looked at, even if just to comment on it.
> And I like tying up loose ends if possible :)

I fully agree with you. It is an opensource downer
when one's contributions are not followed up.

However, we need to look at the flip-side. Perhaps
it would be better to let them wait a bit longer.

If you, Gavin, have time to attend to general stuff,
then it would probably be better spent focussing 
on the currently scheduled issues. Other committers
have already tried a few times to look at the
unscheduled list. Looking at it again means we need
to respond to your questions, and so cannot attend to
other stuff.


View raw message