geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Thinking beyond 1.0 (e.g 1.1, 1.2) (was: Managing tasks for future releases)
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:06:26 GMT
        For my part, I'm not convinced that September is realistic for
1.0.  But I definitely hope to get 1.0 out by ApacheCon US (December).  I
need to spend some time on what I want to see in 1.0.  Perhaps a 1.0 
release number should be added to JIRA, so we can put things in there, and 
then mark them back to a sooner milestone where appropriate.

Aaron

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David Jencks wrote:
> Thanks for pushing on this issue.
> 
> I think it is really important that we put out a 1.0 release very soon. 
>   I think it needs to work, and be tck compliant, but I don't think it 
> has to be all that much more usable than what we have now.  I'd rather 
> get feedback and users than perfection.
> 
> The features I think we need for 1.0 are:
> 
> clean up some architectural problems.  I think I'll get the ones I know 
> about fixed by the end of this week.
> clean up the plan xml.  I think this is a fairly quick job.
> Decide what we will continue to support from our 1.0 release.  IMO this 
> is only the plan xml schemas and possibly some interfaces exposed by 
> some gbeans, primarily gbeans "exposed" by jsr-77
> get the web console in, preferably with instructions on how to change 
> the static page in which the portlets appear.
> 
> I'd like to get 1.0 out by Sept 15th.
> 
> Can everyone think carefully about what they really need to be in 1.0, 
> what they will commit to actually implementing themselves, and when 
> they think it can be done by?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> 
> On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:58 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:06 AM, sissonj@insession.com wrote:
> >> Maybe after M4 is out we should look at creating some further 
> >> milestone versions in JIRA and start assigning some of the tasks that 
> >> were in the Roadmap that Geir discussed to them, so we can get a good 
> >> visual on the project's plans.
> >>
> >> At the moment it isn't obvious (from JIRA) what needs to be done to 
> >> get to a 1.0 release, and how we are going to achieve that (steps 
> >> along the way).  The JIRA roadmap view is useful to see what is 
> >> planned for future releases and would probably assist prioritizing 
> >> work.  There are also a lot of unscheduled issues that would be nice 
> >> to place on a roadmap.  Maybe a review of tasks for future milestones 
> >> should be done at the end of each milestone?    Comments?
> >
> > We are still hammering on M4, so I don't want to distract people to 
> > much.  Just want to get people thinking.
> >
> > I have a couple things in my mind still in the abstract.  Will try to 
> > get them out in some sensible way.  Bare with me.
> >
> > <rambling>
> > RELEASE OFTEN, PERFECT OR NOT
> >
> > Ok, so it's been a year since M3 (ouch) and we have threatened to do 
> > an M4 several times.  Why did we keep putting off M4 even though we 
> > knew very well M3 was no good?  I think the reason is something along 
> > the lines of 1) being optimistic in many forms, 2) wanting the next 
> > release to be some form of perfect, 3) being focused on a couple (or 
> > one) very large goal.
> >
> > More important than 1, 2 or 3 is time.
> >
> > Let's ask ourselves:
> >   - How much usablility feedback could we have gotten in an entire 
> > year's time?
> >   - How many releases could we have done in the last year?
> >   - How many would-be committers and users did we miss out on by not 
> > releasing?
> >
> > Let's be more humble and admit that every release is going to "suck" 
> > to some degree (i.e. not be perfect) and it's better to work on 
> > getting them out faster, not slower.
> >
> > We need to stop making such a bid deal about the next release, which 
> > only slows it down, and start thinking two or three releases out.
> >
> > Normally some form of competition would drive us to push releases out 
> > the door quickly and keep our goals in check with what people really 
> > do need now and what they would be fine having later.  There is 
> > competition out there, but it's us not competing with them, not the 
> > other way around.  Sorry, just calling it like I see it.
> >
> > MILESTONES AND USABILITY
> >
> > Alright, IMHO, we've outgrown milestones.  Better said we've attained 
> > our goal of passing the CTS, the major technical milestone.  Now we 
> > all are focusing on usability.  From my experience, obtaining 
> > usability is all about iterations, as many as you can get and as often 
> > as you can get them.  I think milestones will actually slow us down on 
> > achieving our goal of usability.
> >
> > We are going to have to crank out a half dozen releases minimum over 
> > the next couple months in order to achieve the kind of growth we want. 
> >  At this point in the game it's all about momentum.  We need to be an 
> > unstoppable freight-train leaving a trail of release numbers behind us 
> > and picking up as much community we can carry as we go forward.
> >
> > Pushing a milestone every three months is not going to cut it, nor is 
> > Geronimo 1.0 M12 such good idea either.
> >
> > 1.0, THE UNATTAINABLE GOAL (CROSSING THE LINE)
> >
> > The 1.0 release is not about the cool things we want to add to make 
> > Geronimo great.  It's about reaching a point where you and the users 
> > agree on what will be supported in a year's time, which won't be much 
> > as it's a 1.0, not a 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0.  That's it, no more, no less.  
> > All sorts of cool things can be added later!
> >
> > Here is the point where I have particular experience, ... you will 
> > cross that magical "1.0" line at some point, wether you choose to call 
> > it 1.0 or not!
> >
> > At some point, people will start using the software and become 
> > dependent on whatever you are at the time.  Their expectations will 
> > naturally settle on what you have and not where you say you are going. 
> >  1.0 or not, you now have to maintain stability, only you weren't so 
> > clear on what was going to change and what was to remain supported (be 
> > at least backwards compatible), so now you are in the position to have 
> > to support much more than you wanted.
> > </rambling>
> >
> > Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts and experiences.  Just throwing 
> > them out there for now.
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message