On 3 November 2010 10:27, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
We haven't started working on any of those RFCs (except solR, to have a proof of concept). What has really be a problem for us is that we published RFCs for Lyon3 university a long time ago (mail from Nicolas on koha-devel oct, 12, 2009), there has been strictly no reaction/feedback to those RFCs. Now they are done, and we have rebased them vs head (huge work, and huge QA to do, and probably a lot of time lost) Could they be rejected by the community ? hopefully I hope no, but I frankly don't know what we (BibLibre) could do if it were :-((( (because the customers are live now !) I think we (all) failed because Koha 3.2 was 9 months late. Well, in fact, I think the mistake was not to branch 3.4 immediatly on feature freeze. That would have been much less pain for us (that are customer-planning driven) (suggestion below).
What would have caused much much much less pain for you, was to develop your features in small branches, rather than one monolithic branch which makes rebasing much harder than it needs to be. This is a lesson that cannot be overstated, topic/bug/feature branches make everyones lives much easier. And they mean that if one feature is rejected ... then the whole stack doesn't need to be. I don't think branching sooner or an earlier release would have helped anywhere near as much as developing in smaller branches, not one huge one. Chris