Re: Idea: Marking required scope for 4.0 GA vs. optional

2020-03-28 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > since we want to release ASAP > Help me understand how to reconcile this statement with the fact that improvements and other nice-to-have optional tickets are being created and worked on in even 4.0-alpha as recently as this past week. While *you* and many others may want to release ASAP (inclu

Re: Idea: Marking required scope for 4.0 GA vs. optional

2020-03-28 Thread Benedict Elliott Smith
I would personally prefer we simply bump tickets from the milestone periodically. The point of a milestone is to collect tickets we expect to land there, and since we want to release ASAP we should have at most a handful of optional items there sponsored by some community members, so the burden

Re: Idea: Marking required scope for 4.0 GA vs. optional

2020-03-28 Thread Scott Andreas
Yep that makes sense to me. There's still much work to be done to exercise 4.0 builds to identify unknown issues that haven't yet been filed – but those items can be tagged as release blockers as they're identified. 👍 From: Joshua McKenzie Sent: Saturda

Idea: Marking required scope for 4.0 GA vs. optional

2020-03-28 Thread Joshua McKenzie
As we're under a feature freeze but not code freeze, there are quite reasonably tickets being opened for 4.0 (alpha, beta, or rc) that look like nice to haves for the release but wouldn't necessarily block cutting GA. I think there would be value in us flagging tickets that are required for 4.0 to