-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 16:33:32 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> If the developers were to actually take a step back and say, "Hey... instead
> of working on these dozen different features, I should work on three and help
> someone review another three..." We wouldn't have this problem.
Isn't that the point of the feature freeze period? To put 'development' off to
the side and spend the time reviewing what is pending?
If ppl find it so inconviencing to not be able to submit patches becaus we're
in a feature freeze, then won't that motivate them to do some review, get the
patches cleared so that they *can* move on?
Someone (you, I think) advocated a '3 weeks and then dump the rest of the
patches' (not quote as strong of wording, but similar) ... why not split the
patches list up:
submitted patches, not reviewed
reviewed patches, needs work, waiting on author
reviewed patches, ready for commit.
Once feature freeze started, the first list should only get small patches to
it, easily reviewed and committed ... then, focus on reviewing list A and move
the patch to list B or commit it ... once list A is cleared off, we go into
Beta ... if a patch on list B gets re-submitted before Beta, it gets reviewed
and either committed, or punt'd to the next release ...
That leaves Freeze -> Beta being as long as it takes to get thorugh List A ...
and the only thing punt'd to the next release being that which really isn't
ready ...
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGSnuT4QvfyHIvDvMRAmelAJ90HOW3iOYMABmA41XCjJnKV2urtwCfaFTt
nquLm5G2tVKMCH3Ld7znGQM=
=Vl54
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----