Re: EIS CWS AllowedRelease/AllowedTaskTargets Problems

On 22.06.2010 16:52, Philipp Lohmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/22/10 2:49 PM, Bernd Eilers wrote:
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>> That's exactly what Stephan said: bureaucratic humbug.
>>>
>>
>> Well I know we do have some members in an
>> implement_as_you_want_when_you_want_and_dont_care_about_qa-needs_roadmaps_or_documentation 
>>
>> camp but I didn´t really expect you two to be in there ;-)
>
> Name calling aside: what about issues concerning extensions ? Right 
> now I have to move the target from the correct "milestone 1" of an 
> extension to "3.3" or some such to satisfy EIS. Which is kind of 
> bogus. However the CWS should be "3.4" or some such since that marks 
> into which repository code line the CWS will get integrated.
one of the objective of extensions was to have an Office independent 
release schedule. This automatically leads to an own issue tracking and 
own repository, from my point of view we even can have a simplified 
development process, since all the cws handling was introduced not to 
break office code. So I would leave it to the developers of the 
extension whether they want to have cws or another model. Sane 
extensions can't break office code !
Extensions, please break out of the Office workspace,
>
> Just my 2 cents, pl
+2 cent,

Martin