james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: Trunk and next-major features vs date
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:57:24 GMT
A short summary:

1) Branch date for next-major defined as "Dec 2006 / Jan 2007":
  - a 2 month timeframe is not "hard" date by definition ;-), but if you 
fill is too early or too late we're all interested having more 
information on this.
  - we're going to vote to branch, so everyone of us still have a lot of 
control on the softness of that date.

2) If we want at least to try to achieve the goal of branching in 1-2 
months we have to start discussing the feature list (as you pointed out) 
that we expect.

------------------

The full story:

Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> Are there any hidden dependencies I don't know about that are forcing
> you to release in March?

Absolutely not ;-)
It is simply an estimation I did starting from the proposed branch date. 
I think that given my impression of the current stability of trunk, and 
given the number of active committers we have now, it will take 3 months 
to cut out a release. This is a total guess, anyone could have a 
different opinion, but no one can anticipate the future :-)

> Please cool down. What will be included in a release is a community
> decision. It is not done months before - by just setting a date.

I'm absolutely not angry :-)
I try to be pragmatic: when I'm angry, bored, annoyed, feel insulted I 
simply say this. Now I'm just trying to define a goal, concrete.

Yes, it is a community decision, but we should better try to define a 
common playground if we want to avoid wasting our time. That is why my 
proposal included a "dec 2006 / jan 2007" for branching. This is 
something I proposed, somewthing I thought we agreed upon, something 
that could be changed later, but I expect it to not change.

If you think that there is a better way to optimize our collaborative 
effort, I can only be happy if someone else will make a different 
proposal and we agree on it. I just want to have a clear understanding 
about what we are going to do.

>> I know you only commit working and functional code, so it should be
>> really an issue to you.
> 
> It isn't. Please, don't try to threaten me because of this date.

I'm not threating anyone. I don't want to waste our hours. Define a 
plan, work on it. You always said you can't follow any strict plan, so 
you should be happy I'm trying to do something about it.

Do we prefer to work on trunk without a definite goal / date of branch / 
feature set? NO, I bet.. So please make a concrete proposal if mine 
doesn't fit you.

I just want this thread to finish with some decision taken. I hoped we 
had that decisions taken in the previous vote, but I don't want to 
enforce something simply because we voted it, if the vote has not been 
understood.

So please, you keep talking about features, but you never wrote a single 
list of feature: write them down and let us discuss them! It seems to me 
that I'm the only one writing a feature set that I expect to be included 
in next-major. I asked you all to write your own. If I know what every 
committer want and think I can try to create a compromise. Otherwise I 
can only simply propose my idea and work on it.

>> I proposed to work on a time based roadmap instead of a feature based
>> roadmap because it seemed to me the best compromise between the member
>> goals, and because I think this is more "challenging" (Am I using
>> existing words? ;-) )
> 
> Once again, I think it is good to have a time frame perspective.
> Depending on the features set, it could be realistic or not. No need
> to waste time about, right now.

Why not now? The time frame is really near, we should really talk about 
features now. I wrote my list in the other thread, we are ready for this 
step. Just sit around the table and help us.

>> I simply read 5 times the whole "JAMES 2.4 Road Map" thread and other
>> threads used to discuss the roadmap and created a vote and a roadmap
>> that imho is feasible: we can't discuss 2 months to decide what should
>> be included in a release we want to publish in 2 months.
> 
> Yeah. But you are the one who is re-iterating all this discussions. I
> just said, that your "hard date" for me is a "soft date". What is it
> that makes you kind of angry about that?
> 
>  Bernd

Really not. I stopped iterating this discussion with the vote ;-)
I'm now simply replying to threads not in line with what is my current 
goal according to the last vote.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message