Re: Project scope was Re: Thoughts on Voiding Invoices

["Chris Travers" <..hidden..>]

On 9/25/06, David Tangye <..hidden..> wrote:
> That sounds like a formal roadmap to me. What's wrong with that?

Just thinking it doesn't preclude other work even in the current
version, and offers no firm plans for future versions beyond the next.
> Only I would remove duplication a little:
>
> Keep 1)
> 2) - remove duplication:
>   a) & b) Are not those already in the be maintained in the Bug and
> Feature Request areas of SF? So just keep those areas correct.
>
>   c) As per a) & b) ? Can SF mark items as 'Deferred and link them to
> other items?

We could flag them as deferred, but not link them to other items.
> My point is to keep this stuff in one place only, and up to date:
> minimise effort, remove and prevent duplication of effort.
This is preferable for a number of other reasons too.

> You ought to be able to simply generate a report of what's released from
> SF as well and include it in each release, so the 'What's New' or
> whatever its called does not need to be separately maintained either.
Well, not everything that is changed is tracked on Sourceforge.  There
are cases where patches come in over the email list which are applied,
security issues are brought up in private, and other circumstances
where tracking on sourceforge bypassed.

The current approach is to add changes to the Changelog.  I would
think that it ought to be possible to generate the changelog from SVN
though...

This being said, "What's New" does need some extra maintenance.  Some
new features require some additional explenation that need to be
documented in the release notes (i.e. why is this a big deal...)

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers