[GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] RFC4 discussion call

[Maris Nartiss]

IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable
response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a
fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or
used as an argument for STFU later).


Just my 0.02,
Māris.


2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org>:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
> <mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>> On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
>>> discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 [1]. Ideally (I would
>>> say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
>>> before we start with GRASS RCs...
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
>>>
>>> [1] http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
>>
>>
>> Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the
>> sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.
>
> While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to
> day release management.
> Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero).
>
> The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to
> do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs.
> Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months.
>
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev