Throwing out was
discussed but after Fred's explanation, we decided not to throw out projects.
Wayne wasn't sure
what we decided as you can see in the notes:
I can't recall which approach we prefer.
I've updated the
David <pierre-charles.david@xxxxxxx> To:
[cross-project-issues-dev] 2018-12 opt-in Sent
On 03/10/2018 23:13, Wayne Beaton
wrote: > No explicit opt-in is required for returning projects. We're going
to > sort this out automatically from the aggregation files. Could you clarify how exactly this will be "sorted out"? From
what I understood at yesterday's planning council meeting , the idea was to
disable everyone's contribution at the start of a new cycle and to expect each project to explicitly re-enable its contribution before M1.
Is that correct?
After discussing with other project leads here at Obeo we feel this approach (if this is indeed what is proposed) would be too disruptive.
We've tried this before, and the result was not good, with the first milestone(s) often completely broken. It would be enough for a single project on which others depend to be late to completely break the aggregation. Given the reduced number of milestones we have now, this would be really bad.
I think the idea of relying on an explicit action in "the aggregation
files" to declare intent is good, but using the enablement flag too
risky. Maybe we could have another mechanism in the repo for that. How
about something as simple as a "participation.txt" text file
with a single line per project: