Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Archived » ORMF » The plan needs reconsideration
The plan needs reconsideration [message #3040] Sun, 09 March 2008 13:22 Go to next message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-SchwartzFriend
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
[Jochen Krause said]
Your development plan looks very ambitious, the terminology is mixed up.
M(n) Releases are milestones, they provide the latest fuctionality.
RC(n) are release candidates, normally there is a feature and api freeze
before you publish a RC. This would leave you just 6 weeks for
developing new fuctionality - not sure if this is intended. You should
name the deliveries either M(n) or RC(n).


--
Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Etish Limited [http://www.etish.org]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^...^
/ o,o \ The proud parents of Useme
|) ::: (| The Open Requirements Management Tool
====w=w==== [https://useme.dev.java.net]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: The plan needs reconsideration [message #3053 is a reply to message #3040] Sun, 09 March 2008 13:41 Go to previous message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-SchwartzFriend
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-09 13:22:46 +0000, Joel Rosi-Schwartz
<Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@Etish.org> said:

> [Jochen Krause said]
> Your development plan looks very ambitious, the terminology is mixed up.
> M(n) Releases are milestones, they provide the latest fuctionality.
> RC(n) are release candidates, normally there is a feature and api freeze
> before you publish a RC. This would leave you just 6 weeks for
> developing new fuctionality - not sure if this is intended. You should
> name the deliveries either M(n) or RC(n).

Thank you for pointing this out Jochen. Yes I was confused about the
terminology and we will straighten this out.

In fact though, we were intending to freeze the API after six weeks.
This was based on the fact the Useme which we are offering as the
initial code contribution is pretty much ready for beta, in that it is
feature complete for the first release. Now we are having serious
second thoughts. The trade-offs are:

1. Shipping code and a usable system quickly will hopefully result in
interest from the community because it is perceived as real and useful.

2. Going through several rounds of milestones will allow more time for
collaborators to contribute to the direction of the project. This will
hopefully lead to a broader contributor base for the ORMF.

We would very much appreciate the thoughts of the community on which is
preferable.

Thanks,
B. and Joel
--
Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Etish Limited [http://www.etish.org]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^...^
/ o,o \ The proud parents of Useme
|) ::: (| The Open Requirements Management Tool
====w=w==== [https://useme.dev.java.net]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: The plan needs reconsideration [message #561490 is a reply to message #3040] Sun, 09 March 2008 13:41 Go to previous message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-SchwartzFriend
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-09 13:22:46 +0000, Joel Rosi-Schwartz
<Joel.Rosi-Schwartz@Etish.org> said:

> [Jochen Krause said]
> Your development plan looks very ambitious, the terminology is mixed up.
> M(n) Releases are milestones, they provide the latest fuctionality.
> RC(n) are release candidates, normally there is a feature and api freeze
> before you publish a RC. This would leave you just 6 weeks for
> developing new fuctionality - not sure if this is intended. You should
> name the deliveries either M(n) or RC(n).

Thank you for pointing this out Jochen. Yes I was confused about the
terminology and we will straighten this out.

In fact though, we were intending to freeze the API after six weeks.
This was based on the fact the Useme which we are offering as the
initial code contribution is pretty much ready for beta, in that it is
feature complete for the first release. Now we are having serious
second thoughts. The trade-offs are:

1. Shipping code and a usable system quickly will hopefully result in
interest from the community because it is perceived as real and useful.

2. Going through several rounds of milestones will allow more time for
collaborators to contribute to the direction of the project. This will
hopefully lead to a broader contributor base for the ORMF.

We would very much appreciate the thoughts of the community on which is
preferable.

Thanks,
B. and Joel
--
Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Etish Limited [http://www.etish.org]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^...^
/ o,o \ The proud parents of Useme
|) ::: (| The Open Requirements Management Tool
====w=w==== [https://useme.dev.java.net]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Previous Topic:The plan needs reconsideration
Next Topic:A web interface is also needed
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 22 05:47:35 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01850 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software