C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > In the past, we've been hesitant to commit to a specific date, but I
> > think making such a commitment to ourselves would be both useful and
> > motivating. To kick things off, I propose the following:
> > * We shoot for a mid-May branch date, say May 15.
> > * We can use the June Berlin hack-a-thon to do a final push for any bugs
> > which have popped up during the RC phase (or a push toward an RC if
> > something postpones the branch date).
> > * A final release happens sometime mid-summer
> > I'd be very happy if this process were to accelerate, but I think as
> > things look right now, the above looks reasonable.
> > Thoughts?
> I think folks' hesitation in the past to commit to a date has been less the
> result of laziness and more the result of self-awareness. Subversion is a
> volunteer community, and for most of our volunteers, I think the risks are
> pretty low. Whether we ship 1.7 in the Summer or the Fall of the year is
> of little measurable consequence to them. That's not a bad thing, and
> please don't assume that I mean otherwise. I'm just saying that I believe
> the inherent riskiness of deadlines (note the "dead" in the first half of
> the word) is at odds with a workforce that, for the most part, doesn't bear
> the burden of any risk. In such a universe, the motivation to contribute
> has to come from something other than a somewhat arbitrarily chosen deadline.
> Of course, none of this means that those who *are* so motivated can't decide
> for themselves to embrace the challenge of a deadline, and the dates you
> present are as good as any to embrace. I have faith that if, in fact,
> Subversion is beta-ready by mid-May, our community as a whole will accept
> the recommendation of branching for stabilization at that point.
> So if you're game and I'm game, then let's call it a challenge we accept.
> If our corporately-sponsored peers are game, too, all the merrier. And if
> anyone else reading this comes bearing preexisting motivation but lacks a
> challenge at the moment, we welcome you to the table, too!
Hmm... that makes sense, Mike. OK, I accept the challenge.
Received on 2010-02-17 12:20:55 CET