Re: draft lithium release plan
I've started a separate thread on the possibility of adding requirements after the release plan has been has been approved here:
I've started another separate thread on infrastructure SLAs here:
Other replies inline.
Also, please anyone at all jump in. The more eyes and thoughts the better at this point as long as we start converging.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> wrote:
I've added this line as a clarification: "NOTE: For deliverables defined only in the project's release plan—and not as a requirement in this document—the release management staff and/or TSC will verify that the status of the deliverables has been reported. Lithium release management staff and/or the TSC may also, but are not required to, verify the delivered functionality."
OK. Let's agree that M0 has to come after the TSC approves the plan and a reasonable amount of time before M1 for projects to meet the M1 deadlines and define "reasonable amount of time" in this context next.
The M1 deliverables other than the release plan are:
1.) declare your intent to participate
2.) run an election for your lead
I don't see how that can take more than two weeks.
I agree, but I don't think just giving projects more time before M1 will result in good release plans. I think having stronger requirements about what a draft release plan at M1 must include might.
Maybe the right solution is to have regular release plan iterations between M1 and M2 and conduct them like we do release reviews to provide feedback and improve them.
+1 to that. I already have a TODO to word carefully what we intend by API when we say STABLE, PROVISIONAL and TENTATIVE. That is a high-level piece of functionality with a list of the existing new bundles providing it. Also, if it is PROVISIONAL or STABLE, it must be listed as a named deliverable.
I'll make the edit.
I meant *the* midnight UTC between those dates. I'll change it to 23:59:59 UTC on the first date and add a timeanddate.com countdown timer as a link to be clearer.