"Mark Phippard" <markphip@gmail.com> writes:
> No one has replied to my suggestion, and I think it strikes a
> compromise. We still have a roadmap, we try to stick to the roadmap,
> but we take timeline into consideration when planning the roadmap.
> Whether that is one release every 6-8 months or 10-12 months is just a
> detail. I think that an approach like this can satisfy both camps and
> also lead to less conflict. If there is no basic roadmap then it
> seems inevitable that there are going to be disagreements about
> whether we have enough to do a release. If we have a roadmap that
> defines the goals for the release, then we can always say, feature X
> is taking longer than we thought, lets push that to the next release
> and do a release now.
Okay, so in this plan it would be okay to sometimes release without a
major, release-defining feature? (I've no problem with that, I just
want to make sure I understand correctly.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 29 01:35:05 2007