On 21/08/12 15:31, Mike Burns wrote:
On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 00:30 +0300, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 08/21/2012 12:20 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 11:14 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 08/20/2012 05:43 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
Please think about release criteria and whether or not we want to add/remove/change things for this release. This needs to be determined now to make sure that the release process runs smoother down the line.
Beyond the release criteria, there's the main goal of the release - what is the major problem oVirt users have that we can fix for the next release, for example? <snip>
my view - that would be great, but such goals should be suggested by someone also committing to delivering them per the planned schedule.
I agree - it's one of the things which I've found tricky to understand re the release manager role - the project maintainer is the one who should, I think, be setting the scope of the release, and the release manager is merely ensuring that everyone is aware of where we are within that scope.
Since 3.1 is my first oVirt release, perhaps someone could explain how the scope of the 3.1 release was decided after the 3.0 release, and how we fared against that original plan during the release cycle?
we didn't define a scope for 3.1. people suggested features during the version and we did some fine tuning in the end on timing since some seemed worth the extra time to close/stabilize them.
in general, I think we should define the schedule for 3.2, then see which features people would suggest to try and make the timeframe.
in general, I think it should be a 3-month version (we said we wanted to move to 6 months cycle after the first few versions. I think we should stay on 3 months especially since 3.1 took longer to get the final blockers out and until released).
I think I agree on the shorter time-table for 3.2. I also think we should get a list of features and commit to it and track against it on the weekly call. The 3-month schedule would put us in mid-November to early-December which I think is reasonable.
Mike
I agree we should keep the short cycles, so many things changed and so many fixes were pushed, I see no reason to hold the next release for longer than 3 month + some blockers delay. I am not sure we must have new features in each release, a release of bug fixes seems also reasonable to me. Why not keep it only time-based release regardless of commitments for new features for the release. We can ask what new features are planned/expected to be pushed in the near future, if we get reply with a lot of features then we can call it major version (4.0) if we get only minor features we can use a minor version (3.2, 3.3, etc). Livnat
Cheers, Dave.
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board