On Nov 23, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
we would need to know/decide there will be a 3.2 first, imho :)
I want to do a 3.2.
+1
same here — i didn't want to sound like i wouldn't. it just felt like
we hadn't ultimately decided on that yet.
andi
--
zeidler it consulting - ht
On Nov 23, 2007 11:24 AM, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
> > >So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed
> > >schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original
> >
Previously Andreas Zeidler wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
> >So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed
> >schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original
> >proposal.
>
> i'll have about two or three days between christmas and january
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Raphael Ritz wrote:
So I would be fine with adding 1 or even 2 weeks to his proposed
schedule (not more!) but I could also live with his original
proposal.
i'll have about two or three days between christmas and january 9th,
and i'm sure there will be client work
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:59:23 -0800, Martijn Pieters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I see both sides of the coin here, Wichert is correct in insisting on
shorter release cycles, Martin is correct that December is not the
month to do this. I won't have much time to review bund
