On 11/08/2012 03:50 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> C-Mike Pilato asks in
> "Julian, what is the exit criteria for this issue's completion? At what
> point do we call it "finished" -- or at least finished enough that future
> improvements can be tracked as unique issues?" I guess there are two
> 1. Do folks feel it's sufficiently operative to be released in its
> current state, if it should happen that we get around to releasing 1.8
> before I do any more work on it, and if no-one else does any more work on
> 2. What exactly should issue #4239 be tracking -- a specific actionable
> item, or an open list of ideas for improvement (by reference to the wiki
> Personally, I feel for question (1) "yes, it's just about enough to be
> worth releasing, although of course I'd like more", and for (2) I'd be
> inclined to change the issue summary to "enhancements to the mergeinfo
> summary", change the milestone to "unscheduled", and the priority to "a
> bit lower".
> If no-one has other ideas, I'll update the issue accordingly.
I would agree with (1). Haven't used the feature extensively, but I did
play with a handful of scenarios just to see what it did.
I'm not a huge fan of open-ended issues such as you suggest for (2), because
every time a commit is made toward that issue, the dev has to evaluate
whether completion of the task has been achieved. Not sure which is the
bigger evil, though: open-ended long-running issues, or the proliferation
of tiny related task issues. Maybe something in-between? *shrug. No
strong opinion here.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2012-11-08 22:29:09 CET