Tim Williams wrote:
On 8/16/05, Ross Gardler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Diwaker Gupta wrote:
IMHO, we do not practice "release early, release often", often enough :)
[ snip ]
I think we are all in agreement with this. So lets plan a 0.8 milestone
1 release. On one of the major features in 0.8 will be Locationmaps.
What is meant by a "milestone" release, and why not just call
it 0.8 final? Then get on with 0.9 which will be forrest:views.
I do not see the need for this M1 and M2 stuff.
That is fine by me as long as it doesn't upset the forrest:views people.
I don't want to give the impression that I'm proposing pushing
forrest:views back.
Mind you since locationmap was originally committed during the 0.5
development cycle it's release is overdue a little more than
forrest:views ;-)
Are others OK with doing a 0.8 with the locationmap and doing a 0.9 with
forrest:views?
I gather this is a departure from the suggestion the other day that a
release is cooked when 0 or few issues left in JIRA?
Well I was a little unclear about this statement. David partially
clarified what I intended to say. The truth is we sometimes reduce the
count to 0 by reassigning issues to later releases.
I think the point is that at present we do not classify our issues well.
We tend to lump them into a fix version without considering their impact
on the overall strategy of Forrest development.
We also don't give enough priority to bugs in existing functionality,
you can see this in the fact that my suggested milestones don't mention
bugs that should be fixed for 0.8 (this needs addressing)
I'm not sure
what features should qualify for a new release but locationmap seems
to be widely useful or visible so I'm not sure that it rates the
distinction of a "key feature" driving the release. I don't have a
problem with it, just think this is a lot like having a release for
code refactoring -- (i.e., not much for a user to get excited about).
Actually, I disagree. The locationmap enables a whole range of
functionality that was not possible before. It is not just the ability
to improve our xmap structure. We can now retrieve content from multiple
sources. We no longer limit the client URL space to the document
structure defined within Forrest and we can now create multiple sites
structures from the same content sources.
I do see it as a fundamental improvement in functionality. It might be I
am the only one with these use cases, but I have proposed a number of
talks at ApacheCon that I could not have done without Locationmap. I
believe there is a wider use base or this functionality.
Ross
Ross
