[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DSDP-TM requests delaying our M6 dropby 4 days
|
Bjorn,
I agree with you and David. We should always try hit our date targets as
best we can. If the function we hope/promised would be there shows up
later instead, so be it. But let's try keep the train schedule as regular
as clockwork... With so many projects, any one of which could upset the
schedule-applecart, it's just a bad precedent. Let's not go there...
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
Bjorn
Freeman-Benson
<bjorn.freeman-be To
nson@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cross project issues
Sent by: <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.o
cross-project-iss rg>
ues-dev-bounces@e cc
clipse.org
Subject
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
04/05/2008 04:54 DSDP-TM requests delaying our M6
PM dropby 4 days
Please respond to
Cross project
issues
<cross-project-is
sues-dev@eclipse.
org>
It's been a general project management philosophy at Eclipse never to slip
dates: always slip features, never slip dates.
As far as I know, we don't currently have any consumers who require
strict train date. But we do have consumers who much rather download
a Milestone for their personal use and adoption, rather than an
I-build
or an M6 and later M6b ...
So Martin is saying that (1) "dates don't matter to his consumers" and (2)
"his consumers want to use M-builds rather than I-builds". The obvious
question then is "why not have his consumers use M7/RC0?" If dates don't
matter, and that's the next M-build, then it seems like problem solved...
??
- Bjorn
--
[end of message] _______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
