Noel J. Bergman schrieb: >> Next-major is the only real roadmap we currently have: it has proposal, >> status update and discussions. And also a REAL VOTE! >> > > >> Next-Major currently is in svn trunk folder. This is what we VOTED. >> > > >> I made a proposal, we voted, we had all +1s to that vote. I'm just >> following that release plan. I really don't understand what's wrong >> with this. When I'll have understood this maybe I'll come back. >> > > I'm sorry that you're taking this badly, and I could see this coming a couple > of weeks ago when other people started questioning the release labels. And, > as a reminder, I started this thread to talk about versions in JIRA, > specifically removing trunk from the version list, not to talk about about > what ends up or not in next-major. But let try to explain what I see > happening. > > As best I can surmise, Stefano, what's wrong is that only you and I (and > perhaps Norman) took the next-major plan seriously in all of its details > (which is why I did not vote in favor of it). Everyone else took it as just > a general roadmap, but didn't take seriously the timeframe or consider > anything cast in stone. > Like i said before.. its only a date... if we not feel good with it we can change it . But having a date has many efforts ;-)
> From what I can see, the agreement that actually exists is that when everyone > is comfortable, we branch trunk to a release branch and start work to > stablize that branch. Hey, *I* agree with that, too! :-) What I didn't > agree with were some of the details, especially the timeframes, and it seems > that other folks ignored that and voted for the outline. > > And I have no problem with the general idea. We had laid out something > similar in the past. It makes sense. I just didn't agree with some of the > details and certainly not even remotely with the proposed timeframes when > combined with the rest of it. There are things in trunk that have gotten way > ahead of anyone's comfort point, and yet there is a lot of GOOD stuff in > trunk, too, with high value. > Can you give some more informations about the things you not happy with ? > Here is a bit of irony for you, since you seem to think that I'm fixated on > next-minor and against next-major. Most of the code I want to do belongs in > next-major. And I don't want to see us maintain the v2.3 branch once we can > stablize next-major. When I point out how much code has changed, and suggest > that we have to review each change from v2.3 to what becomes next-major, you > think that I'm trying to be an obstruction. But what I'm really trying to do > is have us do the risk assessment for the code, so that we can more > confidently move forward with it. > > --- Noel > > bye Norman --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
