[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Latest Changes
|
Kevin, there are no attacks on my side, I'm only givin
answers to your questions.
In my answers, I'm refering on the past development and
also on that what process has been agreed and used.
It would be nice that there could be also some real
contribution to the active tasks, than having a lot of other discussion e.g.
about processes in generally.
For me the professional way is to concentrate to the active
tasks and priorize the work so that the end solution does have some
content.
This does not mean that I do disagree about to
improve some processes, but it means the there has to be a proper
time for that discussion.
E.g. I would expect that we all are enough experienced
developers that we would take the process issues to the next release plan.
Concernig to the task and bugzilla entries, I did talk to
Mika and Rauno and they have not done any bugzilla agreenments about
the release plan tasks.
I have discussed about that but no ageed on to cange the
curren tway of development.
-Arto
Arto,
The problem is that this has never worked well, and you
have not listened. At this point you are frustrated, and have decided
this is a personal vendetta against you. You need to do what is right,
and return to a professional stance instead of a personal one. We
realize your time has been constrained, but your actions are unwarranted.
I will leave your attacks to stand on their own.
kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin
Horowitz
khorowit@xxxxxxxxxx
Expeditor Tools Development
Workplace
Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM - Boca Raton,
+1-561-862-2113
<Arto.Laurila@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/13/2007 06:58 AM
|
Please respond
to
Mobile Tools for The Java Platform mailing list
<dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| <dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Latest
Changes |
|
Yes, I agree.
Currently there are defined tasks which we are
working on.
When reporting with bugzilla entry that what we have done, it
should be enough.
The issue that if there is not enough bugzilla
entries to all tasks, btw. has that
been agreed earlier on any of our
telcos. Allthough this goes to Rauno & Mika.
Kind a thing
that there are several things tha how we do differ from some
standard
Eclipse project and as a question that in what terms we do see
what are the standards
for a Eclipse project. How do we differ from that,
should there be changes and if so , why.
If now we have worked so long
and this working way has been able to produce results,
it's quite difficult
to make changes to this just before the summer & autumns release
plan.
I would understand this more in the projects earlier stage, where
there are a lot of tasks
to do.
This way using bugzilla would be nice
to take in use in the next development
cycle.
-Arto
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Craig
Setera
>Sent: 13. kesäkuuta 2007 13:42
>To: Mobile Tools for The
Java Platform mailing list
>Cc:
dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Latest
Changes
>
>Arto,
>
>I understand what you are saying,
but please take a look at
>the standard for the other Eclipse projects.
All projects
>translate their project plan items into one or more
bugzilla
>entries. Each commit then references a bugzilla entry
(which
>in turn references a plan entry). In that way, it is easy
to
>look at CVS resource history and understand why a particular
>change was made.
>
>Although the community is small at
this time, it will never
>grow if people can't see and *understand*
what is going on
>within the
project.
>
>Craig
>
>PS - I know that we have
discussed the process I just
>discussed in person within the core group
and agreed it was
>the right approach.
>
>Arto.Laurila@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> As discussed about
this in earlier, the development is done
>generally
>>
against the agreed task contents.
>> On the active and priorized task
list, please refer to the
>wiki pages.
>>
>>
During development, there will be commits on those task
>>
implementations and also commits on while fixin some bugs.
>>
>> As the MTJ community is rather small, the main development
>is done in
>> Nokia internally.
>> As there is
actually only you Kevin from the MTJ community, that has
>> done
during this release one plugin, I propose that our internal
>>
development should not be taken in here.
>>
>> As
currently, there are Bugzilla bugs, which contains a
>collection of
>> those tasks that are included that specific commit.
>>
I'm not creating a new bugzilla entry on every commit, and I do not
>> believe that need for that.
>>
>> Who
ever that wan'ts to keep in sync to the development,
>must keep him
>> self in sync with the CVS sources.
>> If that person is
not the component owner, this is actually the only
>> way to
understand that whats going on.
>> The component owner will implement
the component, provide needed
>> information about the functionality
and a notice when the
>component is
>> ready.
>>
>> As discussed in earlier, the development is targeting to do
the
>> active, priorized tasks in the project plan.
>> If
there are any open issues in the current work, that you wan't to
>>
change, or take ownership, please open this issue a bit more.
>>
>>
-Arto
>>
>_______________________________________________
>dsdp-mtj-dev
mailing list
>dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
>
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev
mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
