Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0
stephane.ducasse at gmail.com
Mon Oct 16 17:37:13 UTC 2006
sounds good idea. Why not in fact.
On 15 oct. 06, at 21:04, Andreas Raab wrote:
> I don't know what other people think, but these long feature lists
> just give me the shivers. What if instead of listing feature X, Y,
> and Z (on many of which the implementation hasn't even started) we
> simply have a schedule that says:
> a) Open discussion: Two months of determining what's ready to go
> into the next release. At the end of the that period there should
> be a list of things that we'd like to have in the next release.
> b) Alpha phase: Two months of "getting stuff in" for those things
> that we agreed upon in the first phase. At the end of this phase,
> any new feature that isn't in yet, won't get in.
> c) Beta phase: Two months of testing, fixing bugs updating the docs
> and packages at Squeakmap. At the end of which we have a new release.
> Six months, and it should be done. With clear deadlines what is
> expected to happen when. With proposals made by the people who have
> done the work already. With work that is already finished and only
> needs inclusion instead of stuff on which work hasn't even begun yet.
> - Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev