On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Simon Laws <simonsl...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > > What do you mean by short? Monthly? Six weekly? I think it should be down > at > > this sort of order. > > > > I was thinking on something around 4 weeks or less. > > > > Not sure we explicitly have to alternate but I like the idea of themes. > > Maybe this results in the same thing but I wouldn't want to pre-judge it. > > > > I just want to avoid loosing focus, and having multiple people going > in multiple directions. Alternating focus between OASIS spec items and > Tuscany infrastructure/extensions would allow us to get the right > balance, and would allow active collaboration towards a common goal > and I hope better results at the end. > > +1 on not loosing focus, but i think we may need to have multiple people going in multiple directions if we're to get this done in time. Remember the date we're aiming for 2.0 is June, just three and a bit months away so not much time. Doing a release takes time away from other work so too short a release cycle will impact productivity, a release every few weeks is too often IMHO, it might work with the point releases we've done to fix bugs in 1.x.x type releases but for this type of milestone development it would mean an unnecessarily high percentage of our available time gets sucked up in release work. 6 weeks seems more realistic to me and that could give an M2 at end of March, M3 end of April, perhaps beta1 end of May and then 2.0 final tracks the OASIS date. So fitting the work and themes into into those three releases could be: M2 - port as much as possible from 1.x to 2.x M3 - work on OASIS compliance Beta1 - stabilize all functional changes and then only bug fixes in a 2.0 branch till the 2.0 final release ...ant
