Use of "Future"
mattyt-spam at tpg.com.au
Sat Mar 20 11:35:51 UTC 2004
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 08:21, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
> I have my reservations aboute the use of Future. I think the current
> "pushout" of bugs might not be the best way of triaging things, but that
> should be solved by stronger planning ("this is the feature set or
> general target we want for 2.20") and using the plan to justify what
> we'll be working on for a certain release. Whether this is practical for
> an OSS project with a small team is yet to be determined <wink>.
I agree with this totally. The stuff targetted at 2.20 is stuff that
needs to get done soon enough, the stuff targetted at Future is stuff
that never need get done. We shouldn't lose this distinction.
There definitely needs to be some form of stronger planning. My
original milestone triaging was wildly optimistic, and I'd been meaning
to change milestones to be more balanced over 3 or so targets. With
shorter release spans, that should now perhaps be 5 or 6.
Matthew Tuck: Software Developer & All-Round Nice Guy
My Short Autobiography: 1985 Grade Bin Monitor 1990 Class Clown Award
1992 Awarded Most Likely To Spontaneously Combust 1996 Crowned Galactic
Emperor 1998 Released From Smith Psychiatric Hospital
More information about the developers