I don't mean to get (too) religious or philosophical here, but...
It seems to me that a ToDo is just a normal Task that is included
in a particular Release. Part of project-management is determining
which things are going into which release. Instead of maintaining
a pre-release todo-list and a post-release bag-of-tasks, I think
having something to assign a task to a release (even a distant
future release) would make this easier. Tag things as for-3.5,
and when you get near the 3.5 release, you already have your
ToDo list.
Also, part of project management is acheiving deadlines, which
many times means pushing some tasks to a later release. Instead
of "oh, we didn't get to that thing, so let's try to remember to
do it for the next release", you have to explicitly move the task
from this release to the next.
Folks tend to see the bug/task correlation, but fewer see the
feature/task correlation. In my mind, at least, neither a Bug
nor a Feature IS-A Task, but they certainly might initiate
a Task. Maybe Bug and Feature IS-A TaskInitiator.
But, now I'm way off in left field...
-bob
On 28 Mar 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 09:35, Marc Saegesser wrote:
> > We need the 'must have' list of things that have be complete prior to a
> > release. You already mentioned the switch to commons-logging. I'd like to
> > finish up the test cases for the new HttpMultiClient stuff.
>
> What format were you thinking of presenting the 'must have' todo for a
> release? I'm thinking about the same thing for Maven right now and I'm
> trying to come up with a visually appealing format because I need that
> doc for Maven right now. I was thinking of using some graphics to
> indicate priority but haven't found any yet.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
