Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's 2 +1s and 1 -1 so far (note: -1 does not veto here per the > apache voting rules), not counting myself.
Sorry, that doesn't make it a good plan. > Well, we need a guideline or else we'll keep developing for eternity. I want to drop the discussion of dates until we agree on the minimal feature set. We're going to be stuck with many aspects of this release for a long while, we should do a good job getting it right and not push a half-assed release out the door because of some vague time pressure. > There's nothing stopping that -- in fact that's what the first part of > the schedule does! Figure out what we want and get the tickets sorted > accordingly. Then get as many of those done as possible in the given > time frame. We can then "play by ear" what happens if there are still > large items left. It's not a sorting activity and we shouldn't be playing anything by ear. We need to have a firm idea of the minimal requirements before we schedule anything at all. I've giving a big huge whopping -1 on the schedule-based approach. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux, http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
