Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Planning Council/Indigo retrospective"

(Reference)
(Positive things mentioned)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
== Comments from PC during 9/7 meeting ==
 
== Comments from PC during 9/7 meeting ==
  
=== Positive things mentioned ===  
+
=== Positive things mentioned ===
  
 +
communication was good, such as on cross-project mailing list,
  
 +
seemed a little smoother than previous cycles
 +
 +
builds went smoother, mostly passing, only one respin needed
 +
 +
pretty standard, little hassle
 +
 +
quality was good
 +
 +
liked that "checklist" was de-emphasised (i.e. that I did not hound everyone to complete it, if they did not want to :)
 +
 +
happy with people willing to help get through issues
 +
 +
no surprise, dates as expected
  
 
=== Things that could have been better ===  
 
=== Things that could have been better ===  

Revision as of 17:33, 7 September 2011

Indigo Planning Council retrospective

These notes were collected at the end of the Indigo Release, at 9/7/2011 Planning Council call, specifically just to collect them. And not to solve issues, or even necessarily to suggest solutions, but just to capture issues (good and bad) while the release was still fresh on our minds. Where solutions are suggested below, it is intended to primarily better capture the issue discussed .. not to dictate a or pre-judge a solution. Action plans and solutions will be discussed later.

History

Indigo is the sixth simultaneous release, following Callisto, Europa, Ganymede, Galileo, Helios. The Planning Council meets regularly to come up with plans and requirements. Eclipse Foundation projects can voluntarily join the simultaneous release. For meeting minutes, see http://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council.


Comments from PC during 9/7 meeting

Positive things mentioned

communication was good, such as on cross-project mailing list,

seemed a little smoother than previous cycles

builds went smoother, mostly passing, only one respin needed

pretty standard, little hassle

quality was good

liked that "checklist" was de-emphasised (i.e. that I did not hound everyone to complete it, if they did not want to :)

happy with people willing to help get through issues

no surprise, dates as expected

Things that could have been better

Reference

See also last year's retrospective

See also others' retrospectives (which may or may not be related to "simultaneous release", per se)