Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Callisto RC1 experience

How about if we change the deltas to # of days relative to prior dependencies.  We can include the expected dates based on the these initial deliveries and deltas, but clarify that slips of earlier milestones potentially mean slip of the dates (but not the deltas).  As always, we’ll try to accommodate any slips of our dependencies (as we would hope others accommodate ours on the tail-end).






From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:19 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Callisto RC1 experience


David, good idea - I made the change.

Tyler, I don't think we ever came up with a policy for that. It does seem silly to blame a +2 project for slipping because a +1 or a +0 project slipped. I propose that you guys just do something reasonable and then everybody agree that it is reasonable. Let me know what it will be and I can update the Callisto web page with new dates.

David M Williams wrote:

Well .. while we are all being so agreeable .. it might help too if the schedule presentation emphasized the end-date, instead of the range .. I think that adds to the confusion too.

Thessin, Tyler wrote:

What’s our agreed to policy regarding Callisto dates and slips of early dependencies.  E.g., Callisto RC1 states the three categories of deliveries as absolute dates.  But, how can the +1 and +2 categories deliver on the absolute date if the earlier dependency is not available on time.

Back to the top