On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:58:19PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> The mismatch in the numbering here feels inherently confusing to me.
>>
>> How about if the numbers were aligned, and then the first Beta target date
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 02:58:19PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The mismatch in the numbering here feels inherently confusing to me.
>
> How about if the numbers were aligned, and then the first Beta target date
> was called something like "Preferred Beta Target" or "Beta Target 0"?
>
> That
On 3 November 2017 at 05:55, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> It turns out that the "Rain Date" concept is confusing to some people
> (particularly where that idiom is not familiar). I propose that for F28
> and onward, we keep the basic concept, but ditch that term. Instead, we
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> We do not slip only on Beta or Final. In the past we had also some
> troubles during Mass Rebuild which were causing slip of a whole
> release. As I like the idea Matthew proposed I would like to expand
> the "Slipping policy"
I do like the idea. I think three target dates make sense.
2017-11-09 10:49 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik :
> We do not slip only on Beta or Final. In the past we had also some
> troubles during Mass Rebuild which were causing slip of a whole
> release. As I like the idea Matthew
We do not slip only on Beta or Final. In the past we had also some
troubles during Mass Rebuild which were causing slip of a whole
release. As I like the idea Matthew proposed I would like to expand
the "Slipping policy" with a rule:
If Mass Rebuild slips for a week the Beta release date moves to
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 04:40:30PM -0400, John Florian wrote:
> Call me crazy, I don't mind, but what about scheduling the release
> dates in reverse, using whatever naming scheme? Then as the release is
> finalized, we either stick to the last release date if there were lots
> of "slips" or we
Call me crazy, I don't mind, but what about scheduling the release
dates in reverse, using whatever naming scheme? Then as the release is
finalized, we either stick to the last release date if there were lots
of "slips" or we select an earlier release date because things went
really well. This
It turns out that the "Rain Date" concept is confusing to some people
(particularly where that idiom is not familiar). I propose that for F28
and onward, we keep the basic concept, but ditch that term. Instead, we
use:
* Release Date Target 1
* Release Date Target 2 (a week later).
As now, these